Harry Hubbard appeared on America Unearthed on December 28 (S02E05) to discuss the Illinois Caves, alleged final resting place of Alexander the Great, Cleopatra VII, and various and sundry lesser Macedonian dynastic royalty. Among these was Cleopatra’s son by Mark Antony, Alexander Helios, from whom Hubbard’s company, Alexander Helios, Inc., takes its name. Hubbard agreed to answer some questions by email, and I agreed to run his responses in their entirety, which turned out to be much longer than anticipated, as he provided a lengthy excerpt from one of his publications. I gathered the questions from my own curiosity and many of the excellent questions readers proposed earlier this week. Thanks to everyone for several excellent questions, and thanks to Hubbard for taking the time to answer them.

For those who don’t have the time to read through everything, here are the highlights:

Hubbard appeared to acknowledge that he is an ancient astronaut theorist and believes that aliens were involved in the Illinois Caves. However, after I published the first version of this article, he wrote to accuse me of bias and putting words in his mount. (See note at end of article.)

Hubbard does not have evidence to support his assertions about history of the Illinois Caves beyond the alleged Illinois artifacts themselves.

Hubbard states that he received a script for America Unearthed prior to filming, which means that the show decides on its conclusions before interviewing anyone or conducting its “investigations,” the opposite of standard journalistic practice and documentary filmmaking best practices, by which the writing comes last, after the reporting and fieldwork. Otherwise, you risk biasing the results and working to fit facts into holes in the script. After all, if you write the script first, that means that you must know you are not going to find anything.

Hubbard refused to answer questions about any topic other than the Illinois Caves without payment. Hubbard said he would “debate” issues for money, but since my questions were requests for information, not a debate, I declined to pay him anything, as is my policy.

My questions are in bold and Hubbard’s answers in plain text. Some of the questions may seem disjointed because Hubbard broke up my longer questions into smaller sections and answered them piecemeal.

The Questions

Several readers are interested in your appearance on America Unearthed. Did producers instruct you about what you could or could not discuss? No, they didn't have to. We all had copies of the script. They knew I was going to give my claim which I wanted to get to any National TV audience. Everything follows a script at the end of editing and all the good footage ends up on the floor. They shot enough scenes and dialog to make several shows if they wanted to.Did the show represent your point of view accurately? No. There wasn't near the time spent with the real pieces as they did with my replicas and a couple of fakes. We shot several takes of me deciphering one of Scott's cartouche tablets but I knew they would edit that out. This is one of Scott's several pieces that clearly show Meri-Amen Setep-en-Ra Arksantrs. (Ref. Budge Egyptian Glyph Dictionary Volume II page 942 entry 388.) I had two tables spread out of beautiful pieces many of which had been through forensics but none made it to the episode. Pictures of our layout can be seen on our Facebook site The Illinois Caves.Was there anything they left out that you felt should have been included?Yes. For sure, what was left out was any history of this discovery. I taped the history and background of when this discovery first happened at least 3 times. So for the viewer, the whole episode was flying around in the grand canyon in the exact same place I told Jerry Wills about back in 2002 when Paul and I stayed with him for a couple of days. I thought we were going to get our own episode like anything else they had run that was half interesting. Don't get me wrong, I love Scott, he's a great dude, but sometimes it's a bit hard for me to make it deep into some of his shows and I could never watch them as many times as it appears you do.Second: I had worked hard on a new Egyptian Glyph decipherment off one of the replicated gold medallions that I really wanted on the show. Zak and I knew it was a long shot so we taped me giving the final in English on a short update vid. My notes and how I put it all together are shown on our facebook also. If you study this at all, you can see the syntax is all over the place and the sentences are not structured in a flowing vocative. It's a really good glyph inscription never before seen or heard of on a national scale. Next: I wanted to show and decipher on their edit another one of Scott's amazing pieces. He has a tablet about a foot tall of a king in Egyptian garb holding a staff and an ankh with the cartouche right there in front of his head in old glyph Meri Amen Setep-en-Ra Arksantrs...who is Alexander the Great. That piece is worth untold millions and I don't think Scott gets it yet.Then: I wanted to show more of the artifacts I had there and I for sure wanted Scott to bring one of his Cleopatra tablets...I didn't tell him who it was, just bring it. But it was too large and heavy for him to trouble with along with his gear. Scott has three fine tablets depicting Cleopatra...but her name is spelled as KLEOPTRA. "Beloved, Queen of Queens Kleoptra mother of Helios the King." But of course it's written in reverse on the stone which causes some scholars issue because they have never studied ancient languages.Also: As stated earlier, the history not only of the discovery, but of the classical aspects as well. We didn't just dream all this up. Without a full background of the discovery, people are led to believe Russell Burrows found it and it all began in 1982, but the fact is this site is clearly on record since 1925 when it was first discovered. You can see all this in detail on my video Modern Discovery.Most Importantly: Our claim was left out. We have been saying for the past 20 years that what people have in some circles popularly dubbed Burrows Cave is indeed the final resting place of the Ptolemaic Dynasty including the cadavers of King Alexander the Great and Queen of Queens Kleoptra.

What evidence can you offer a skeptic to demonstrate that the caves you describe actually exist? I'd say about 8 and a half gigs. I'd like to offer you a thumb drive with several gigs of pictures, old documents, layouts, data charts, hundreds of documents for you to see if you want to. Let me be very clear on this. We tapped the mother lode and it happened to be in Marion County Illinois. There has NEVER in the history of archaeological discovery any ancient site the world over that has come to light with more artifacts, documentation, books, reports, forensic tests, websites, blogs, videos of decipherment, videos of historical significance all dealing with the important impact of this ancient tomb that was looted by a human styled baboon [Russell Burrows].Even if all of the artifacts you claim to come from it are genuinely ancient, that does not automatically prove they came from the cave as opposed to, say, California or Europe.It would be stupid to think someone would go overseas to bring back several thousand pounds of artifacts and sell them for $5, $10, $20. I have Megahead in my shop right now and he weighs over 150lbs. Add to this the many mapstones that show the local river systems with ancient sites marked on them.

You have told me and others that you agree that Russell Burrows fabricated artifacts and otherwise engaged in dishonesty. Why would you trust any claims he made or any artifacts he uncovered? Burrows is way too stupid to know five different ancient languages and their associated alphabets. Nor would he have ever known what to carve back then. There are too many stones, that Burrows was first selling for way less money than it would have taken him time to carve them. It was only later he started tainting them. Please let me explain also that we do not go by any of Burrows' claims except what he writes in chapters 18 and 56 of his book.

How can you independently confirm the authenticity of the same?I've had pieces forensically tested at an archaeological lab in Santa Fe. The all passed as +1800 ybp. There is so much including a silver coin that passes as well. Do you have any images of the interior of the Illinois Caves? Just what I show on our website. There were others that popped up here and there but they could have been of anything. The only reason I post the pictures I have are because I found the negatives in Jack Ward's files in an envelope labeled Pictures from Inside Cave.How were artifacts placed in the cave, and in what positions were they found? For example, were they carefully arranged in an intact burial assemblage, or had they been moved after initial deposition?We will never know. Are you willing or able to provide original (not duplicate) artifacts from the Illinois caves for authentication by professional Egyptologists or archaeologists?Oh sure. I had mine authenticated back in the late '90s. But it would help if you could find an Egyptologist who could actually read glyph. I haven't found any yet. It appears to me that by today's standards, anyone who can read a Cairo street map is automatically an Egyptologist.

Is there any additional evidence of Greeks or Egyptians in pre-Columbian Illinois beyond this cave, such as house foundations, Greek-style cities, linguistic evidence, genetic evidence, etc.?There are Roman and Greek coins found all over this country. You can read about that in history books from the 1800s or even Charles Fort documents dozens of ancient coins found right here in Illinois. There are ancient forts, settlements and defensive walls along with mounds throughout this area. People have found artifacts depicting elephants near here and I am currently working on another Egyptian Amulet found a few miles downstream. About 10 years ago, a pot hunter found a staff head about a mile from our tombsite.What type of ships did the Greco-Egyptians use to reach America? We tend to refer to them as Mediterraneans because there are several cultures depicted in this tomb as well as the different languages. They were Roman ships, Trireme, quinquereme and other large ships as well as smaller vessels too.Why are these ships not depicted in the artifacts we have seen on your website? Those galleys do not appear to be ocean-going vessels.This issue would be my fault. I have over 100 photos of artifacts with ships and boats. But you have to remember these stones are mostly small and it is hard to carve an ocean going vessel on them. The ships hulls are truncated. These ancient artisans had no idea people thousands of years later would be criticizing their handiwork.

You claim that Alexander Helios, the son of Cleopatra VII, fled Egypt and came to America after Augustus’ defeat of Antony and Cleopatra. The last historical reference to him, by Cassius Dio (51.15.6), states that Octavian (the future Augustus) had taken Alexander Helios to Rome and pardoned him. Why would he be fleeing Octavian if he had been pardoned? You are wrong. Here is what I have documented concerning such mistaken information. This is an excerpt from book #1 dated 1994. If you can find where I have indicated otherwise......? More on this to follow.[Editor's note: Here he reproduces a lengthy section from the overview to Alexander Helios, which appears below, with Hubbard's original copyright notice at left.]

During the Hellenistic Age, a great dynasty rose up to rule over the land of Egypt. King Alexander the Great of Pella, who had conquered all the wealth of the known world, established the city of Alexandria, and died in Babylon. On the return trip to Macedonia, his body was commandeered by his first General and half-brother, Ptolemy. Ptolemy showed off the elaborate coffin first in Memphis and then moved the cadaver to Alexandria where he would enshrine it after the new mausoleum was completed. At Alexandria, Ptolemy established the Dynasty Sema adjacent to the new museum. A library was also being built in the new complex. These and other facts are recorded textbook history.As a result, the Ptolemaic Dynasty was created. This Dynasty became the curators of all the knowledge of the world, the largest collection of ancient artifacts and the largest library in history. They also possessed a horde of gold so immense; it would have required a caravan of wagons one mile in length to transport it from one place to another. Ptolemy (Soter I) dedicated a proportioned parcel of land in the heart of the city especially to accommodate all this vast wealth and knowledge.After over 250 years, the Dynasty finally yielded to the Roman Empire, but not before the Ptolemies had acquired -- the many tons of gold and silver, the finest jewels, the most prized maps and books with the most magnificent museum on Earth. All of it now belonged to Emperor Octavian and the Roman Empire. Octavian made a leisure trip one day to view his newfound wealth after Alexandria fell into his hands. He truly enjoyed seeing the museum with its artifacts and books, but most particular, his visit to the Ptolemaic Tomb on the west side of the lot. The Tomb was soon to be host of three new bodies, two of which were already designated. Just days after his arrival, Queen Cleopatra VII and her youngest brother, Ptolemy XIII were added to the eternal members of this marbled mausoleum for the Royal Dead. Octavian swiftly passed by this crypt as well as all the other crypts containing the Kings of this Dynasty. Octavian went directly to the Main Crypt where King Alexander the Great lie enshrined forever. Octavian silently stood gazing and glassy-eyed: King Alexander the Great, in his solid alabaster sarcophagus with a glass cover – Alexander, with his Famous Trojan Shield and gold Death Mask. Octavian became fixated and remained there for many hours in awe. His general nudged him to break the spell and said, “Ptolemy I is entombed just over there. Would you care to view it?” Octavian looked up at him and said, “I came to see a King, not a corpse.” History also records that for some strange reason, Octavian touched or struck the nose of Alexander and damaged it. What made him do this? Was the Death Mask on Alexander? Where was the gold sarcophagus he had heard so much about? Could it be he noticed after studying the body long enough, he was staring at a cenotaph? After a few moments, Octavian turned, left the tomb and shortly thereafter, he left Egypt and returned to Rome. Little did he realize he would be the last person recorded in history as having actually been in the presence of this Tomb. This Royal Tomb, with all its splendor and gold, vanished along with a great portion of the contents in the museum and hundreds of volumes from the library.From the evidence gathered by deciphering the tablets of script found in the Lost Tomb of Alexander the Great, it is now possible to present for the first time a portion of forgotten history beginning as follows:There was a captured Carthaginian prince living under the stewardship of Octavian, who also served in Octavian’s army, Juba, son of King Juba I. (pronounced as ‘you – bah’) King Juba I of Mauretania had been defeated at Thalpsus by Julius Caesar and butchered because of his alliance with Pompey during the Civil Wars. The dead king’s son was taken hostage and in later years distinguished himself greatly. Juba was deeply admired by the emperor Octavian. There was a great dilemma for Octavian with regard to the treatment of Marc Antony’s remaining legions who had surrendered to him following the battle of Actium. There was no more land available in Italy or on the frontier available for the Antonian veterans, who were the highly skilled elite warriors of the Roman army. This included Julius Caesar’s famous and powerful Tenth Legion. Antony’s army hated Octavian and had no desire to fight in his army. Octavian’s highest priority was to provide for his own soldiers first. He had even less desire for large numbers of former hostile forces to remain in his empire. We know from history, Octavian demobilized his army of 60 legions down to 24.The young captive Juba must have eventually come up with an answer to this great problem for Octavian. The Mauretanians had knowledge of a centuries old Phoenician / Carthaginian colony a great distance to the west of the ‘Pillars of Hercules’. This land had been recorded by ancient authors as being rich with rivers, gold, copper, and was also the source of the famous Purpur used to make dye. Diodorus Sicullus, Pliny and others, give reference to this land beyond the ocean. Juba was a brilliant man and aware of what was known through legend as ‘Happyland’ or the Land of Many Smiles. Juba suggested to the emperor that he should build Mauretanian ports along the Atlantic coast and fortify the Port of Gades in Spain. Juba explained how the mighty Emperor could extend his trade into the heartland of Spain traveling up the Baetis River and digging a canal through the vast marshland along its northern bank. He also suggested the Antony’s legions with their great fleet be sent to this colony in order to conquer, settle, and start anew the flow of goods from there back to the Roman Empire.Juba’s idea was a great solution, for not only could Octavian get rid of Antony’s army, but he could also employ them to send him large quantities of copper which could be mixed with his tin from Britain. Juba’s plan received Octavian’s approval and Juba was made monarch of both Numidia and Mauretania as a reward. The now King Juba II was placed in charge of supervising the operation.In 28 BC, a large fleet which included many remnants of the Actium fleet, comprised of at least two legions, warships of the trireme and quinquereme type with many transports for supplies and small riverboats, set sail from the Port of Tingis. They were commanded by Admiral Sosius who had served under the leadership of Antony. The first fleet consisted of 67 ships and only one was lost at sea.The armada arrived in the land to the west directly translated as The Land of Many Smiles or called by slang, Happyland, about a month after its departure. They colonized settlements in the vicinity of the Florida panhandle, Cuba, the Bahama Islands and penetrated up the Alabama River (which is referred to as the ‘White River’) and farther on to the regions northward. In about 26 BC, these settlers began migrating up the Mississippi River, they called the ‘Great and Mighty Water-Flow’ where they allied with the former inhabitants of the Carthaginian Empire. They established a major city and port near present day St. Louis and called it ‘Caesarea, the City of the Sun.’ This site can still be viewed today known as the Cahokia Mounds. These North African descendants controlled most of the settlements along the Mississippi, Tennessee and Ohio River basins.They attempted to reach the Michigan copper country overland in order to reestablish the copper trade, when they met disaster at the hands of the Natives consisting of large numbers of the “Horned Helmets” and “Stinkards” (or ‘bad-smelling people’). Back in time to the Mediterranean SeaFollowing the defeat and alleged suicides of Mark Antony and the mother of his three surviving children, Queen Kleopatra VII, the three royal siblings: Alexander Helios, Cleopatra Selene (who were twins) and Ptolemy Philadelphus were chained and returned to Rome. Octavian paraded them in gold cages at his triumph celebration, and their mother was represented by a life sized golden image of herself lying on a couch.The children were raised in the palace by the emperor’s sister, Octavia, who was Mark Antony’s legal wife under Roman Law. Octavia regarded herself as the true mother of Antony’s children and cared for them in the manner their custom would provide, while her brother, Octavian, (later called Augustus Caesar) was childless and regarded himself as the children’s true uncle. Octavian was deeply concerned their future be provided for in a noble fashion.The captive prince Juba and the much younger Selene fell in love after only a few years. Thus began one of the most bizarre, romantic and forgotten love stories of all time. The Emperor admired the noble and loyal Juba, granting him back his homeland, changing his name to King Juba II and giving him the hand of Selene, his adopted niece.About 24 BC, the Mauretanian King Juba II married Cleopatra Selene, the daughter of Mark Antony and Cleopatra. She then became known as Queen Cleopatra Selene of Mauretania. Both of her brothers, Alexander Helios and Ptolemy Philadelphus ended up in Mauretania also. With the new discoveries from the Lost Tomb of Alexander the Great, we can begin to piece together a portion of history which has been lost.From the famous ancient port at Gades off the southern coast of Spain, as well as ports along the Mauretanian coast, King Juba II expanded trade from North Africa to the British Isles and down the west coast of Africa. Since Juba was of royal blood, he had no problem becoming the administrator of what was left of the Carthaginian / Phoenician merchant fleet. We have determined Juba II, with the help of his wife Selene and brother-in-law Alexander Helios, was able to control and maintain the black-market goods being shipped from the east and transported down the Nile. This marketing network had been established several centuries before and with the sudden death of Cleopatra VII, there was no one supervising this “silk road” for a few years. It appears Juba II, having traveled the Nile as well as several countries beyond Arabia, was first in line for the overlord position.Commodities were in short supply but the demand for goods was constantly increasing. Juba II used his main port “Ioh Hyssar” at Caesarea, for his primary network hub. His ships sailed all over the Atlantic from this port. The insignia or trademark from this port has been found throughout the North American Continent. The famous port city of Ioh Hyssar was commuted from and to other ports such as Gades, Naples and the British Isles.Sometime during his early manhood, Alexander Helios voyaged to “Happyland” across the sea bringing with him the Sema of his ancestors. His ship traversed the river we know today as the Mississippi from the Gulf of Mexico. At the mouth of the present day Ohio River, they took the eastern river route because it was twice as wide as the river flowing from the north. They continued their journey along the course of the main river, passing large tributaries including the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers. When they reached a large river flowing from the north, they left the main river and turned against the flow up the Wabash River. After traveling about 15 miles, they navigated westward up the Little Wabash River into an unknown territory. Traveling about 32 more miles, they somehow decided to traverse up a river known today as the Skillet Fork; most likely during the spring floods.We know Helios became a powerful king here in Happyland. The recorded evidence will show how the armies of Helios engaged a host of enemies from Illinois to Michigan, up into lower Canada and eastward all the way back to the coastal islands near Maine and eastern Canada. We now have records written in stone which give details of battles fought in North America over 2000 years ago, complete with accurate maps and engaged infantry numbers.Alexander Helios was the first Sun King of Happyland and was adored by his people. He became a High Priest and was later deified as a god. Helios was a great warrior and general. He was killed later in life by wounds sustained during a battle and entombed near the location of his last victory. Helios, Juba II, Selene, Octavia and Queen Cleopatra VII along with their achievements, are forgotten no longer. The accomplishments of these five personages will live on in memory forever.

[Hubbard resumes his answer here]You can also read more of my work directly pertaining to this issue at this link.Why would he choose America instead of a closer anti-Roman stronghold? We are historians, not psychologists.Is there any evidence that Alexander Helios ever left Europe other than the disputed Illinois artifacts?No, he simply falls off the face of history. How did Alexander Helios, resident in Rome, get seagoing ships and supplies to sail to America with a large contingent without any Romans noticing or recording the event?You can see Paul [Schaffranke]'s decipherment of the "Numerius" tablet at the end of our Etruscan Volume One video for these answers. The event had to have been noticed, but perhaps not recorded. Or you can read and deduce from the article posted above.Why did the anti-imperial historians of the early empire fail to record this important humiliation of Augustus, the “escape” of his enemy’s son?We believe it wasn't an insult. There were thousands of legionnaires who did not wish to fight for Octavian (he wasn't Augustus yet.) We think Octavian was more than happy to let them go because he wouldn't have a mutiny on his hands and he wouldn't have to pay them money or land for their services. You told me that internet postings about you claiming that a UFO carried Alexander the Great’s body to Illinois were false. This YouTube video from 1998 shows you discussing extraterrestrials in the context of the Illinois Caves artifacts and asserting that ancient texts, particularly Pliny’s Natural History, are “UFO books.” You also assert that artifacts from the Illinois Caves are “obvious” depictions of ETs and their crafts. Do you believe in ancient astronauts? Of course. Thank you for watching my video. It has gotten rave reviews for years.If not, why were your statements about aliens in 1998 incorrect?I say I don't believe in UFOs or Aliens. I believe they have been here longer than we have and just because I don't know what kind of ship it is soaring across the sky with lightning speed doesn't mean the guy driving it doesn't. He knows if it's a Ford or a Chevy and probably knows how to check the oil too. I prefer to call them saucers or AFOs.On your website, you write that “evidence” indicates that gold from the Illinois caves was sold to the U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing via Fort Knox. What is this evidence? Because of the letters I have dated in the late 1980s involving Fort Knox along with senators and congressmen from Indiana.Who sold the gold? Burrows and [Jack] Ward.Since the Bureau of Engraving and Printing handles only fiat currency (Federal Reserve notes), not bullion or coinage, what did they do with this gold?You are wrong. Ever heard of the Golden Eagle? It is a US coin and backed by the Fed. It is my speculation; I am going to stick my neck out again and declare that it is possible, the 1991 US Coin Golden Eagles contain the gold smelted down from this tomb. [Editor's note: The U.S. Gold Eagle coin was authorized in 1985 by an Act of Congress and is produced by the United States Mint, not the Federal Reserve. They are not backed by the Federal Reserve but hold value based on their gold content, certified by the U.S. Treasury Department.]On your website, you state that Helena Blavatsky did not exist and was invented in the 1920s. How do you explain the existence of The Secret Doctrine, Isis Unveiled, and other documentary evidence of her existence prior to 1920? How did her name end up in public records, newspapers, and other sources from the 1800s?This is debatable and has nothing to do with this tomb. I will debate this issue very easily for money and nothing less. My research is not only entertaining but worthy of being learned by people who have not examined the data. I will leave you with this hint though...Are there any Blacks in Russia today??? To believe or think a mulatto or black woman lived in the middle of Russia during the mid 1800s is absolute stupidity!! Only on the internet. Physically show me one single book printed in Russia during the 1800s that has Blavatsky in it. Have you ever even seen a book printed in Russia before WWII? What did you notice about it?? On the same page, you assert that the Maya never existed. Who or what built their cities, and how could linguists have deciphered their language to discover a coherent account of their history if they did not exist?Again, this is not tomb related...but it all has to do with semantics. You have stated to me and to others that your standard of evidence regarding the Illinois Caves is “prove us wrong.” I have never said this was my standard of evidence that I know of. Please verify your statement. But no one the world over has, can or ever will be able to prove us wrong. We did it. We identified the big one.Do you apply this standard of proof in your own life? For example, do you believe in alien abductions since no one can prove they are not happening? Or ghosts? Or ancient astronauts? If not, why is the standard of proof different for your caves?I am for more skeptical than you can or will be. I have a reputation to identify with in an Historical sense that can easily be identified with by hearing my dozens of online interviews, watching my videos and reading my books. I don't flip-flop, change my mind or later admit I got something wrong. The rest is for any unassuming and unbiased person to travel his own path of investigation and research to make his or her own determinations. As with several of our videos, we don't tell you what to think, we just show you the facts.....go make up your own mind. There is no advantage to me or my project if you just woke up one day and admitted to yourself....hey, that Harry Hubbard was right about something. Well, sorry to inform, but no big deal. As near as I can see, you are not a historian nor do you study ancient languages on a regular basis. It appears you are only a bit 'skeptical' which is really very little on the tree limb of life. If you go into your research with an already supposed outcome, you will certainly make the outcome work for you. We never set out to discover Alexander's Tomb....no one dreams of this as a child....and we would never have been in this position had we not read the history books, studied the Greek, Latin, Punic, Glyph and Numidian....who else could have done what we did? If our information came from some other person, would it have been more believable? Or, what if this discovery were made in Egypt, Sudan or Spain? It would have been jumped on 90 years ago.As far as me attempting to sell my books and make some money off of the world's greatest discovery is all very wrong and undisciplined, but not for others who have never made any discoveries or deciphered ancient unknown text? Should I have been a basketball star with orange hair and multiple body piercings?? Thank you for the opportunity to enlighten you and your devout audience. Harry Hubbard[Editor's note: None of my questions referenced financial interests, money, or his motivation for monetizing the alleged tomb.]

After the Interview

Harry Hubbard felt I did not fairly represent his position in summarizing his interview in my introduction and that therefore I am biased. In his interview he stated "I say I don't believe in UFOs or Aliens. I believe they have been here longer than we have..." You can draw your own conclusions about whether I should have believed the first sentence or the second, or his 1998 YouTube video about "aliens" and the "craft" seen by the alleged occupants of the Illinois Caves. He also wants to make sure we all know that he has geophysical evidence of hollow spaces under the ground around the alleged cave site, which I guess is supposed to prove that there are caves. This, of course, proves nothing about the contents of said caves.Anyway, here is his follow up message in full:Follow Up Statement by Harry HubbardNo, Harry does not and has never believed ancient astronauts had anything to do whatsoever with this cave. I only state that it appears these ancient people saw ancient strangers along with strange ships in the sky. Nothing more, nothing less. Please make the correction and do your best not to interject opinion not based on fact. You have made another incorrect assumption. We have conducted Earth Resistivity on the target property several times. There is a large room under one bluff and a cavern system under the other one.Please don't put words in my mouth via assumption. Please get our story correct without your bias. Be biased on your time not mine. HHI thought you did a great job with the presentation and I did touch on your other subjects, just not in fine detail. Please make note of that. Everyone tries to make me sound like a monster, but I just want to get the facts straight.....thank you.Hubbard then delivered another follow-up, attacking me personally.Second Follow Up by Harry Hubbard[S]ince when did anyone's claims matter to you at all??? You, I assume, suppose yourself to be a fair skeptic, but when you are faced with facts and corrections, you become humble? Come on Jason, if I was afraid of being attacked or smeared, I would never have bothered with you or your blog. All you guys do is attack and smear. I expect no less. I'm so sorry I hurt your feelings or made you uncomfortable. Perhaps I should go to some better skeptics blog. Do you know anyone who is better than you at what you do? You and your bloggers attack me, make insulting accusations, call me names and I'm the BAD GUY. I say to you and your cyber family, Man Up or move on. Is that clear enough? What's your next childish statement or stupid question? Am I supposed to run and hide because someone doesn't like me what what (sic) I'm saying. You gotta remember, I've been doing this for 20 years. I eat people like you and your colony for breakfast. You don't believe in ETs or flying saucers because you are an idiot and I would say you have never read the works of Charles Fort either. Now are you going to cry and run to mommy because I called you an idiot? I wonder if you still live at home with your parents. Please, by all means, don't listen to my claims. But if you print something about me, make sure it is TRUE!! HHAs per Mr. Hubbard's request, I have printed only what is true, namely his exact words.

Good work Jason for doing all this. Thank you Harry for answering the questions.

Reply

HH

1/10/2014 05:57:33 am

Thank you Bill. I do my best to answer a bunch of questions forthright and I am bashingly accused of having an EGO.. Is that the best you guys can come up with? How about proving me wrong on any decipherment? Now there's something you can work on.

Reply

Joshua walls

4/9/2014 12:18:13 pm

I am intrigued I want to learn more and maybe even go cave hunting I live in so. Il.

RLewis

1/10/2014 03:23:38 am

Jason, thanks for, what I can only assume, was a painful experience trying to pin him down on these questions.
I still don't understand why he asked you to remove the ancient alien reference from your original post - but I really don't care now. His circular reasoning gives me a headache.

As I understand it, the problem is that the article I had read said that Hubbard said that a UFO carried Alexander's body to Illinois, whereas Hubbard only believes that the Mediterranean visitors saw and/or met with the aliens *after* arriving in Illinois.

Oh, I should also probably clarify that the questions were submitted and answered by email. I've added that to the intro above.

Steve

1/10/2014 10:52:07 pm

Oh, you submitted and Harry answered the questions via email. Then it was not 'a painful experience trying to pin him down on these questions' as RLewis suggested. I wonder, RLewis, does your assumption indicate that you approached this subject with bias firmly in place?

Reply

Scott Hamilton

1/10/2014 03:51:19 am

The ego on this guy. I heard an interview with him, and he literally said he was the smartest guy he knew, and that his claims must be true because he couldn't disprove them, so how could anybody?

Does "Happyland" have any ancient provenance? It sounds like the Romans were exploring the playground at a McDonalds.

Reply

Harry Hubbard

1/10/2014 05:50:27 am

Ego....? Thank you, as beat up as I feel most of the time a bit of boosting is much appreciated.

>>Does "Happyland" have any ancient provenance? It sounds like the Romans were exploring the playground at a McDonalds.

Yep, it's there in Diodorus Siccullus as I have mentioned in one of the links. So many people are completely ignorant when it comes to ancient history. Sounds to me like you are the one exploring the playground at Mickey D's when you should have been reading and studying your history. Thy that before you make such bold and incorrect statements. It would behoove you to be better informed.

As it happens, Harry, I am not ignorant about ancient history. Is it possible to be more specific? Diodorus makes mention of many blessed isles, such as the anonymous island of 2.57 and the imaginary island of 5.16, not to mention Panchaea in 5.41-67 (with fragments in Eusebius, Praep. Evang. 2). Which one were you referring to?

Scott Hamilton

1/10/2014 06:06:56 am

Mr. Hubbard, having an ego is not a good thing. I'd explain to you why, but my arguments are so great I get paid to make them. Would you like my email so you can PayPal me $150? You can't prove me wrong!

HH

1/10/2014 07:18:46 am

Neither one. Try this. http://www.illinoiscaves.com/newhist.htm It's all right there in print from years ago but you have to read it. So sorry to offend you Jason. I supposed someone like you could take a hit or two, as many as you deliver yourself. Had no idea you had a glass jaw. I've been a punching back for bad bloggers for years. No matter how bad a writer you are, and have nothing to write about, just smear and slander me and people WILL read your ilk, repost it numerous times, and make the same futile claims.

For those of you keeping track, Hubbard is referring to Diodorus at 5.19-20, where he describes an island first reported 300 years earlier by Pseudo-Aristotle at De mirabilis auscultationibus 84. This island was allegedly a Carthaginian colony several days' sail from the Pillars of Heracles.

Hubbard, however, prefers to engage in invective rather than simply state the facts he pretends to elucidate. On the linked website, he claims "Can you believe, after writing this over 2000 years ago, I would be the first contemporary to exploit it as obviously meaning the North American Continent." In fact, Gomara, referring to the older text of Pseudo-Aristotle, made the same (false) connection in chapter 220 of Historia general de las Indias (1552), and it has appeared regularly in fringe history since then,

Straws

1/10/2014 09:47:24 am

Does anybody find it morbidly ironic that Harry Hubbard goes by the code letters "HH"?

Could just be straws, tho. Altho, HH might consider dropping the HH when dealing with a story riddled with people involved with the Nazis, supremacy, and racism stuff.

Russell Burrows: The Indiana Jones of Olney, Illinois

This is the strange case of a rogue, amateur archaeologist and a secret cave filled with ancient, priceless artifacts of Biblical proportion, with a bizarre Nazi sub-plot.

http://whofortedblog.com/2012/09/23/indiana-jones-olney-illinois/

HH

1/10/2014 03:02:12 pm

Hey Scott, are you a psychologist? I didn't think so. Could you please link me to any of your online reports or videos so I can review them and get a better idea of where you are coming from? Thank you.

quakemaker

2/8/2015 05:56:34 am

This seems to be quite a load of BS. When is history not embellished by the victors. The truth can only come from physical, scientific and more than one source proof. Neither of which you can provide. Assumptions and ooparts are not facts in your current claims. Combining a fictitious story around a collection of replicated artifacts and purporting it as ancient history is not common practice among true archeologists. 20 years capitalizing on a person's stupidity is about as low a person can get. How can you live with yourself? Lame profiteer!

HH

1/10/2014 03:05:43 pm

Awe STRAWS...now you've busted me. Soon it will be out that Harry Hubbard is an SS agent working for the Nazis. Wow. Jason, where do find all these children....? Oh, I know, it's your blog. hehehe

Reply

Straws

1/10/2014 03:59:06 pm

Ego is a bad thing. Jason has an ego but is more of a confident ego! I think that is what is needed!

Reply

Jason of Illinois

1/12/2014 08:46:46 am

Hubbard is an anti-science quack. He's a charlatan, there's no debating people like him. All evidence has to be falsifiable to be considered legitimate science, and his buffoonish statements are so laughably stupid. The Mayans didn't exist. Really? Europeans "mysteriously" began finding gold coins they brought over from Europe after arriving here in the 1800s. Shocking! Incredibly, no blacks ever visited Russia until the 20th century. That's racist and doesn't take into account Puskin's Ethiopian great-grandfather in the 1700s. Hubbard's claims about Native Americans, and that this continent had a surrealistic "white" presence in ancient times is a repeat of the white supremacist blather that justified so much racism that's hurt this country in the past. It's not surprising. And, Charles Fort might've been a good author, but he's as irrelevant to real science as homeopathy is, despite his continued popularity.

Clint Knapp

1/10/2014 03:53:54 am

Nice questionnaire all around, and thanks to Hubbard as well. I'm not quite sure what to make of the Helena Blavatsky statement, but I'm sure if he demands money for the full answer it is indeed quite interesting and entertaining. Did he actually imply that Helena Blavatsky was "mulatto or black"? Most unusual.

I'd say something about her family being a noted military family in Russia for generations, but since all internet sources regarding the matter have been deemed unfit for the debate I'm afraid I don't have a copy of ninteenth century Russian lineages to point at directly.

Reply

Scott Hamilton

1/10/2014 04:11:41 am

I'm not sure what he's getting to with the Blavatsky and race thing either. Some pictures of her look like she had her hair done in corn rows or something similar -- maybe he thinks only black people can do that?

What do I notice about Rusian book from before WWII? They're in Russian and old? Not sure what he thinks he's hinting at there either.

That's really stretching it. I have books printed in Moscow before WWII and they are in English! There is something very common among books printed in Russia and if you ever saw a single binding, you would readily notice what I mean. It's like my items for debate, don't jump in unless you have the goods and I'm not about to share what I've learned with hours of research to appease someone's curiosity for nothing.

Scott Hamilton

1/10/2014 06:12:34 am

In fact, antique books are an interest of mine. I recently visited a military library that has quite a few Russian books from the 19th century in its collection, so I've seen far more than a "single binding" just this year. Would you care to be more specific?

Matt Mc

1/10/2014 03:55:44 am

Interesting read, Thanks Jason.

As out there as he is at least he was forthcoming and honest (or so it seemed).

It is interesting as AU runs longer we learn more and more how guest on the show are unhappy with how the show presents them and their viewpoints.

Reply

Steve

1/10/2014 10:54:42 pm

I submit this is the case of almost all filmed interviews. I've been on both sides of the camera for years. the interviewee always wishes they could have clarified a point, said something different, added something they forgot to mention. And if there is agenda present by the producers, directors, writers, etc., the interviewee is rarely happy with what was left on the edit room floor. After I was on Scott's show and came on here to correct some glaring misrepresentations by Jason, I made it clear that my experience with Committee was positive. My viewpoints were, on the whole, well represented. And the outcome furthered the discussion of early trans-Atlantic contact.

Reply

Matt Mc

1/11/2014 01:03:25 am

Well Steve you must no more than I. I have only worked int documentaries for over 25 years. Most interviews are only basically scripted in the fact that the interviewer has a series of questions to ask. A good interviewer has studied the subject and can ask good follow up questions that enable the interviewee to provide as much information as possible. In most documentaries the guest is seldom left feeling pissed of and misrepresentative. In all my years I have only heard of tow instances of subjects being unhappy with interviews on productions I did, two in 25 years, now there could be a some that never got back to me the lowly editor or cameraman. I have had live talk show guest unhappy with what they said but those are more confrontational by nature. What I am learning of Committee films is more and more interesting because they are doing things so differently than most places. I have worked in a more science and political arena and the production companys or studios I have worked for have a higher code of ethics. To me the shows look, content, and production methods go to show me that technology and the lowering cost of equipment does enable anyone to make documentaries.

And no need to thank me for me response because I am not doing it for you I am doing it because you are wrong with everything except your experience with committee films.

Reply

Steve

1/11/2014 03:31:44 am

You and I have different experiences, Matt Mc. That doesn't make me "wrong." By the way, one of my experiences was being on AU under the direction of the very company you're critiquing. I have empirical evidence that you are wrong and I am right. I also know others who have been on Scott's show who had great experiences.

You're right about the democratization of production equipment and software has made the process available to a lot more people. That culminated in the plethora of reality shows we now have, which were the direct result of Hollywood's writers' strike.

I would think you'd be happy that some people are upset at Committee/Scott. I would think you and others here would be busily hunting down every guest hoping to find similar evidence.

Matt Mc

1/11/2014 04:08:15 am

When I said you are wrong I said you are wrong in the larger sense of the word and scope of the production industry. You said that you have been in front of and behind the camera for years. If that was the case they you would know that it is generally not the case that guest are unhappy with the performance. You would also know that every documentary has an agenda.

I am glad you had a good experience on the show, I hope you and every guest would. That is how a production house builds a reputation and gets more guests to appear on there productions.

As for wanting people to have bad experiences, not at all. I would hope that they would have good times and maybe learn something about the production process on set. Contrary to you beliefs I want shows like AU to do well. I want shows that explore fringe topics. I might call into question AU methods because I find them professionally unethical but I do so in the hopes that enough people learn about how the are being manipulated and maybe that will help force a change. I believe shows like this have a place and that they can ask good interesting questions and that in turn might inspire someone to do some research that might find something interesting out, perhaps even as Wolter puts it "Changing our history". I only ask that a more truthful approach is used. For example I use the recent two hour episode of River Monster in which he hunted for the Loch Ness monster, did he solve the mystery no. But the show did use mythology and science fact to propose a interesting examination of the lore vs fact as to what the monster could be. I highly recommend watching that episode for an example of what I am talking about.

Matt Mc

1/11/2014 04:23:19 am

I feel obligated to mention that while I have not worked on River Monster directly and have no direct involvement in the show. I did edit the short advertising spots for the first two sessions that where used by Animal Planet.

Varika

1/11/2014 05:16:20 am

Matt, I have to weigh in a bit here and say that I think that Steve is right in part--most people I know who have been interviewed, including myself, have later felt that they wished they had done or said this or that differently. That doesn't necessarily mean they weren't happy with the interview or the interview process.

However, I also have to say that I got the impression, upon reading the email interview, that there is no way in Hell that Hubbard would have been happy with any show that did not give him center stage for the whole hour--or even if they had, but not given him TWO hours. I'm not sure one can entirely blame Committee Films for this one. For the pre-scripting and so forth, perhaps, but not for Hubbard's dissatisfaction with not being the center of attention for long enough.

Matt Mc

1/11/2014 06:24:54 am

Okay fair enough Varika, I get what you are saying. That is true people are unhappy with how they presented themselves, I should of said this, my hair was wrong, ect.. That is not what I was referring to. I was referring to how the saw themselves presented and represented in the final product. As I mention except in rare cases people are happy with the overall presentation and how it works within the context of the larger piece. People are highly critical of themselves and that will never change but there is a difference between presentation in a program and self criticism.

As for Hubbard I agree, based on his actions and responses here I doubt anything would been liked unless Wolter said he is absolutely correct and a genius.

But getting back to what my point was ment to be, guests should see the final product and be happy with the presentation and how they were used in the product. This helps the show and its creators build a positive reputation and leads to getting better and stronger guest.

Woah.

1/10/2014 04:30:47 am

Slightly scary pathology.

Harry said, "They [the Romans] established a major city and port near present day St. Louis and called it ‘Caesarea, the City of the Sun.’ This site can still be viewed today known as the Cahokia Mounds."

If a Roman "major city and port" was founded on the Mississippi River at Cahokia, there would be evidence. There is none. But, really, there isn’t any solid evidence for any of Harry's claims.

It's amazing that the equivalent of snake-oil salesmen still proliferate in this age of information and science.

Reply

Harry Hubbard

1/10/2014 05:43:38 am

Oh surely. A couple thousands of years of flooding leaves everything perfectly in tact. There is evidence all over the place, you just don't know about any of it and will never be willing to research the data. Start with Spiro Mounds and work your way to Koestler.

Reply

Mandalore

1/10/2014 06:32:33 am

The Roman city of Ostia (its port on the Tiber) is older than any Roman city on the Mississippi. It is similarly located on a river that floods regularly, and is preserved in remarkably good condition. Alexandria in Egypt likewise flooded and was subsumed beneath the Mediterranean, but ruins and artifacts can be found there as well beneath the sea. Any large Roman city would leave artifacts and ruins of some sort beyond mounds, as is clear throughout Europe, Asia, and Africa. That is also why I don't buy Mormon historical ideas.

Woah. Again.

1/10/2014 08:13:16 am

Harry, I have visited and studied Cahokia many times. There has not been a single discovery or artifact that even remotely relates to the Romans—and there have been numerous trash sites and midden uncovered which solely point to the Mississippian mound building culture or trading networks they had access to (viz. marine sea shells, Mound 72). Further, Spiro Mounds is not even close to Illinois—they are located in Eastern Oklahoma.

But Harry, this all belies a basic point. As the purveyor of extraordinary claims, the burden of proof is on you. This is how academic research and science is conducted—if you have evidence for something, you cite it to support your claims. But you don’t—you just throw up a bunch of chaff and say “prove me wrong!” We’re not going to prove you wrong, because your claims don’t even rise to the level of deserving peer review. I merely pointed out the bald ridiculousness of your statement of a major Roman city and port located at Cahokia.

Sadly, I have to say, you’re a laughing stock, and I’m sure you don’t mean to come off that way. But you can’t just throw out a bunch of speculation and innuendo—then back that up with fallacious assertions like the Romans had a “major city and port” at Cahokia and expect people to believe you merely because it’s been packaged in some carny-barker hillbilly snake-oil con job. Ain’t gonna happen. As a suggestion, get with the times and go with what’s academically provable—not with what makes you feel good, like the fantasy of discovering the “greatest archeological find in history.”

Harry Hubbard

1/10/2014 05:45:47 am

Also, that story was put together back in 1994 with what information we had at the time just to manufacture a copyright for future movie deals. There is a bit of drama interjected because our supporters wanted us to include more than the scant data we had then.

Reply

HH

1/10/2014 02:33:16 pm

Hey man, do you have any educational videos online? Do you have any reports that I can read. Did you not know that there is only one single real artifact in the Cahokia Museum? Probably not, that's because you are ignorant.

Reply

Woah. Once More.

1/11/2014 01:13:17 am

That's right Harry. Don't defend your ridiculous claims----like the Romans building a "major city and port" at Cahokia----try to divert attention away from your self-serving fictions you're peddling as fact. The reason you play a game of distraction is because your argument hold no water----they are fictions, lies and misrepresentations, for what? To add more “drama” and entertainment value for movie rights?! Don’t you think you should have announced beforehand? You see, there have been many hucksters and con artists throughout history that have tried fool people with tall tales, lies, false histories, .... That's why academic researchers and scientists have adopted a culture of methodologies to provide independent oversight for new discoveries, theories, research, etc. Everyone here has asked you to provide substance to bolster your assertions and you respond with ether. You refuse to defend your claims because, simply, they are indefensible.

Matt Mc

1/11/2014 02:33:44 am

In all fairness Harry anyone can self release a education video on a place like Youtube or Vimeo that does not mean it is a "Educational Video", those are released and sponsored by a education institution and vetted by peers. I glanced at your videos and they are most definitely self produce and of very low production value. Since I only glanced I am not making comment on the content, as I video editor by profession I was just curious. I think you are stretching very far call those videos documentaries or educational videos.

Scott A. Hamilton

1/10/2014 03:46:54 pm

How about you let me interview one day for Jason as I could probably get a better insight into the questioning of the caves??

Reply

HH

1/11/2014 01:31:26 am

If you took the time to listen to more of my interviews, you could probably get a better insight into the caves. Just wishing for it to fall into your lap...only in your mind. Any time you wish, no problem. Do you have any online material available??

No, unfortunately, Weebly's system is pretty primitive. I can only delete posts, not edit them. What I can do is this: In the future, email me with the offending post, and I will delete any post using a fake name. I will try to monitor incoming comments by email address to see when a fake one is being posted, but I can't guarantee I'll catch them all.

Only Me

1/10/2014 05:47:40 am

"But it would help if you could find an Egyptologist who could actually read glyph. I haven't found any yet."

"We are historians, not psychologists."

"Thank you for watching my video. It has gotten rave reviews for years."

"But no one the world over has, can or ever will be able to prove us wrong."

"I am for more skeptical than you can or will be."

"I don't... later admit I got something wrong."

That's about all the useful things I got from his responses. What an ego!

For the benefit of everyone who commented here, I have updated the above post with a follow-up message from Harry Hubbard, who feels that my introduction was biased.

Reply

Sheena McCalvin

1/10/2014 03:19:13 pm

Im new here and came across your site but I am trying to understand some of the many postings and conversations here. Are you coming from a skeptical point of view asking (critical thinking) for proof of evidence/ Than makes sense. I do not want to confuse you with some of the posters who seem to say you are racist. Critical thinking must be used in archeology and that is not being racist. However...If somone throws a theory out, should we not check into it instead of dismissing it? Newbie here and really reading up on the discussions so forgive my ignorance???? I did enjoy Harry Hubbard on America Unearthed

Reply

Hank James

1/10/2014 03:53:06 pm

They like to jump on people that disagree with them. They invited Harry Hubbard as a guest and yet treat him like the plague because of his info! What doees that tell you about this site????????? They are too scared to intervie Wolter and then jump on Harry for llaying out his information on the table!

Sheena, my biography is available in the "about me" section, and I am indeed a skeptic who is simply asking for evidence that the material in question exists. As a result, I have been accused of being anti-white and also anti-black simply for asking believers in lost white colonies and trans-Atlantic black colonies to provide evidence for their points.

Hank--this is my blog, not the blog of commenters who post here. Do you blame the makers of YouTube videos for everything commenters post in response to them? I let people post comments, and that includes people like you as well as other skeptics.

I am certainly not scared of Scott Wolter (ask him: I successfully defended myself against his attempt to sue me), but after trying to sue me I doubt he would speak to me.

Steve

1/10/2014 11:03:14 pm

I agree, Hank. And, Jason, you should clarify that Scott was on these comment threads among your "peers". He found it a waste of time. Any idiot with a keypad and an opinion can go on a rant, feel important, and bombard you with the same questions over and over again. Jason's comment threads attract a lot of Internet bullies. The posting of facts and the honesty to state when they're merely opinions does occur here. It just gets overshadowed by the haters. And when they get someone to appear who has been a guest on Scott's show, it's like Christmas to them. It invariably turns into a pile on.

Harry Hubbard, in my opinion, you conducted yourself wonderfully here. This group seem to think that any one of them is entitled to monopolize your time with questions like Tara's, "I think I really want you to discuss the technicality & the specificity of an Egyptian Exodus to Illinois." It's a cute technique she uses again and again. Makes her feel smart. The best thing you can do when a bug flies into the room is squash it.

I found your comments, like those discussing the timing of the fakes appearing on the market, provide a more rounded view of the cave claims. Very interesting additions to the story.

The thing that cracks me up is that the pundits here think they can assess the validity of hard evidence from what they read. They sniff around for motive, deceit, personality disorders, etc. But without the stones in their hands and the knowledge to test them and the surrounding soil in-situ, they're left with punditry. And 99% of those who comment here wouldn't be able to conduct the necessary testing anyway. They've simply read on Wikipedia that such testing is possible and that makes them experts enough to judge you.

I'm watching another situation develop where, like Burrows, the wrong people might have discovered very real artifacts of early trans-Atlantic contact. Unfortunately, the discovery was not conducted correctly, no soil tested, etc.

Does that make the artifacts lies? No, it just makes it useless in furthering the discussion. And it will, someday soon, provide more material for these comments.

You are quite right, Steve. Any idiot with a keypad and an opinion can go on a rant, as you have ably and repeatedly proved. I'm glad, too, that you feel that ranting about crying to mommy and living in one's parents' basement is admirable conduct. You have done us all a great service by establishing the boundaries of what those whom you support may say and that which those who oppose you are forbidden to say, which of course are the same.

Real Evidence.

1/11/2014 01:27:48 am

Sheena and Hank. We need real evidence from people who make extraordinary claims, like, "I've made the most important archaeological discovery in the Western Hemisphere!” To make such a claim, and not back it with evidence is an insult to those who devote themselves to the rigors of academically sound history and science. Harry agreed to engage in a Q&A here, and he hasn’t provided any substantial evidence for his wild claims. He is not serious and is selling snake oil.

HH

1/11/2014 01:40:48 am

Awe Jason, you poor fellow. Can't take it when people do you the same way you do them. No buddy, you provided false information to your colony on your blog WITHOUT doing your homework, and for that, you were scolded. As for REAL EVIDENCE, I've written two books, done countless interviews, produced dozens of documentaries and all you can do is jump up and down on the sidelines waving your pompoms. You are little more than a cheerleader for your team and I'm sure you've never done anything to prove your point, if you had a point. How many ancient languages do you know? How many years do you think it would take for me to teach you? Well, you can watch our video Etruscan Volume I and get a good idea of how Latin and Punic are written and read. There is always a remedy for ignorance (which simply means 'don't know'), but there is no remedy for stupid.

I do find it heart warming that I have been labeled with an EGO and not arrogance.

Shelly P.

1/11/2014 03:41:51 am

HH You have a massive ego. It is a huge part to your brain. Anyone that thinks they know everything about so many topics with 100% certainty and then calls everyone else stupid or ignorant, makes you sound very dumb. Try some humility and say I really believe I am right on this and here is why. That is how smart people sound. Not everything you speak of with such certainty is 100% accurate. That is certain. I know you think everything you say is right, but that huge part of your brain that thinks so is your ego.

Shelly P.

1/11/2014 05:36:18 am

Talk about meant to be. I just received this via email……OVERCOMING YOUR EGO - Sue Fitzmaurice (Author) -stop being offended -let go of the need to win -let go of the need to be right -let go of the need to be superior -let go of the need to have more -let go of identifying yourself by your achievements - let go of your reputation.

Will

1/10/2014 11:09:12 pm

I think people ask the same questions because none of them have been answered.

Reply

HH

1/11/2014 02:03:15 am

And pray tell where this genius came from.... Good to see Jason use the word idiot in his post. I was just guessing about the parent's thingy. Perhaps I missed my calling and should have been a psychologist after all. For all your bloggers, to get that in the park, I must have a good perspective don't you think?

Will

1/11/2014 02:21:50 am

HH,

Why are you being so rude to everyone here? I respect your belief in your theories and I have been polite in my questions and statements to you.

I have not even questioned any of your claims, because other than the website that you own and manage, I have not been able to find anything else about them.

In fact, In my statements and questions to you, I have not even revealed what my position is about your claims.

Why would you be so nasty to people who are taking the time to try to get more information about a discovery that you have been trying to get the word out about?

HH

1/11/2014 02:51:49 am

Will, you're just stupid!

Shelly P.

1/11/2014 03:46:51 am

HH To call someone stupid in this case says lots about you. You must have some serious anger issues or something to be so rude and mean to people.

Wolter Fan

1/11/2014 09:16:45 am

Shell P must stand for Shellys Perception! Jasons hench men are on the prowl again! Harry, Im telling you you are wasting your time here battling with brain warped bullies who only bow to what Jason says. I heard through an ex member he wishes he could be up there with Childress, Wolter, and yourself, and I sort of fell a bit sorry for the guy. Jason has worked hard on his info and is a smart guy, but . a poster said he was turned away from Wolter for submitting one of his theories to the show, If this is so, it explains his vendetta against him.

"Wolter Fan" is the same person who has been posting under numerous aliases on several blog posts, including as an Afrocentrist. I have not now nor have I ever had any contact with Committee Films or America Unearthed, let alone "submitted an idea" to the show. Indeed, checking my archives shows that I critiqued Wolter's work long before America Unearthed started, when he published a Bat Creek Stone analysis in Ancient American. As I wrote at the time of the first episode, I decided to review the show only because it came on after Ancient Aliens, which I had been reviewing for more than a year at that point.

Harry, I provided you with an open forum to talk at any length you wanted about your chosen subject, and you repaid this with vitriol, accusations, and insults. My purpose here was not to evaluate your claims but to give you the space to explain why we should believe you. In return, I and my readers received no evidence but rather requests for money and personal insults.

I admit to being somewhat at a loss to understand your contradictions. You are upset that others have insulted you and yet you feel that I should welcome verbal abuse from you.

I would request that you (and everyone else here) refrain from personal disparagement.

Incidentally, my Latin and Greek are just fine.

Reply

HH

1/11/2014 02:28:03 am

Oh BS Jason. You didn't provide a soapbox at all. I offered to jump into your pit of vipers and you unknowingly didn't realize I like snakes. I have read much on this blog and you think nothing of slandering, belittling and insulting people at your whim. When you post something, you look for the most degrading and bad information you can find on the net and run with it. As for me, manu forti, ne cede malis, sed conta audentior ito.

>>My purpose here was not to evaluate your claims... More BS Jason. Just read your first posts about the show and do more backstroking all the while waving your flag of fairness. I have not solicited money from anyone here and that is just more of your BS. I have offered not only YOU but others here FREE downloads. Are you sick or just can't remember what you type? You have made this blog popular with your personal disparagement of others...or did I miss something? Nitor in adversum. Nemo me impune lacessit. Go back to your basement. Lunch will be ready around noon. Esto quod esse videris.

You said you would only provide information on non-cave-related claims for cash. That would be a request for money. Do I misunderstand what "I will debate this issue very easily for money and nothing less" means?

Do I also understand you correctly that your purpose in coming here was to engage in exchanges of insults for your personal pleasure? If so, I apologize but this is not a fetish website and I am not interested in helping you enjoy yourself at the expense of civility.

I do hope that A+E Networks is checking in today, as they are wont to do on this blog. They should be proud of the people their programs give platforms to.

HH

1/11/2014 02:51:08 am

No. The website says those items are debatable for money. That is not asking you for money. Remedial English grammar gone sour here. As for A & E...I'd bet those guys are laughing their tails off watching you and your bloggers get their butts spanked. Oh Jason, you so want to be the angel of truth don't you? Sapere aude.

The quote, my dear Harry, was directly from your response to me in our interview, not from your website. I asked you a question about issues that are related to North American prehistory (the Maya and Blavatsky being relevant to both by dint of fringe history claims), and you said you would only answer for money. That's not a grammar issue. When others asked you about these issues, you similarly responded by stating you would answer only for money.

steve

1/11/2014 03:01:29 am

Fetish: Fixation with objects, body parts, or situations not conventionally viewed as being sexual in nature.

Harry, what would you recommend to the dozens of folks who purchased Burrows Cave items over the years? Apparently, they started cheap at first and progressed upwards in value. Should the old people (and collectors like Wolter) feel safe with their investments? That you know of, is there a still-flourishing market for these items? Do you have any for sale yourself? Thanks.

Reply

HH

1/10/2014 08:51:23 am

Great questions. The fakes and tainteds popped up heavy summer of 1995. We told all the buyers to stop purchasing them because Burrows then knew enough about the script to forge certain letters with their associated symbols. He told his buyers to have nothing to do with us and if they did, he'd stop selling them stones. I have seen entire collections people paid good money for that are all badly tainted or completely forged by Burrows. Any stone purchased after summer of 1995 is most like a bogus piece. When I say a Taint, I mean that Burrows has added letters or symbols to the tablets. All of the Jesus stones are fake. All of the Finiteres are tainted. The collection Wolter has was purchased from a collector who bought his stones before 1995. Wolter's collection is fabulous, but there are still many taints and forgeries.

Reply

Gunn

1/10/2014 11:27:05 am

Thank you. Further, I'm wondering about this transition period, when apparently the selling went from authentic to tainted or faked artifacts. What you are saying, basically, is that Burrows corrupted the legitimate selling of these artifacts, right? He found that the authentic objects fetched good profit, so he began to manufacture fakes one to "piggy-back" off the real ones, right? This transition took place around 1995, and this seems like a kind of nightmare you are involved in, trying to separate the real from faked items.

If what you are saying is accurate, I guess Burrows must have been a very villainous fellow, to treat history so shabbily. You now seem to be faced with the nearly impossible task of separating these thousands of artifacts into groups and sub-groups of believable and tainted and possibly tainted and unbelievable categories.

But, in the end, you will only end up wasting your time. The "fringes" of Burrows Cave will never be profitable in any way, I predict, as the premise is far too ridiculous to fool mainstream America. I'm sorry to say that any and all credibility has slowly leaked out of Burrows Cave a long time ago.

I don't know how you will ever be able to convince anyone that some of the artifacts are genuine. It looks to me like the whole fantastical issue is hopelessly mired in deceit, and without repair. There has been too much corruption and CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR connected to the case of Burrows Cave, rendering the subject impossible for the average person to believe in. Sir, Humpty-Dumpty cannot be put back together again...in any way, shape or form. The problem is that Humpty-Dumpty never was "together" in the first place.

I don't think you'll ever make any money by pursuing this, but rather you will put yourself in a continuing position of public embarrassment all for naught. From the heart, I advise you to free yourself of this present unnecessary and unprofitable burden. You've done a good job of hanging in there, for whatever reasons, but eventually you'll have to cut this sham loose, for your own good. Peace to you as you accomplish this attainable goal.

J.A. Dickey

1/10/2014 01:12:39 pm

Jason's questions are legitimate.
Gunn, you succinctly framed this
in a most logical & polite manner.

HH

1/10/2014 02:22:12 pm

Thank you for your advice Gunn, however, I never posted here to get any advise from anybody and certainly have no intention of asking for such, but thank you again for showing some....errr....compassion. Best to you.

HH

1/10/2014 02:26:31 pm

A second response. Yes, Burrows was first selling pieces for $5 up to $10 dollars. The first piece he got $25 for was a relief of Julius Caesar and he had no idea who it was on the marble tablet. As time drew on, he got better prices. The most paid for a stone, that I know of, was $10K. I do occasionally broke tablets. Whenever I hear of a collection or piece up for sale, I pool as many resources as I can hoping to obtain them. I personally have 3 left. I lost 15 in a fire back in 2008.

Emmanuel Steiner

1/10/2014 03:21:36 pm

Dont listen to them Harry! He is trying to be a shock jock of history and media like Howard Stern and uses his bad of bullies to make up theories! They would not know knowledge if it hit them!

RLewis

1/10/2014 07:50:57 am

HH - another questions if you don't mind. In your response you said that Scott Wolter "has a tablet about a foot tall of a king in Egyptian garb holding a staff and an ankh...." and "Scott has three fine tablets depicting Cleopatra...". Do you know if these are from the Illinois caves or did Scott Wolter obtained these from other sources?

Reply

HH

1/10/2014 02:19:48 pm

Several years ago, Scott purchased a massive collection from a museum designer. What you guys don't know is that it was high end antiquties dealers, museum designers and museum display artists who were buying Burrows' stones. Yeah, all these guys must have been stupid to buy all those fake artifacts. :-)

Reply

Gunn

1/10/2014 02:53:47 pm

HH, were these museum designers and museum display artists buying the stones for props, like having a great looking Spanish sword in a glass case, made in India, for a prop...to decorate a room? I'm curious about why these groups of people would be interested in the stones, or how they became interested in the stones. Do you think they wanted to re-sell the artifacts for a handsome profit, if possible? This is a different approach than selling fake stones where fake knapped spear-points were hawked at local out-door markets, for instance. Thanks.

RLewis

1/11/2014 12:11:18 pm

According to SW, since he does not know the environment they came from, he is not sure if these stones are genuine.

Varika

1/10/2014 09:04:22 am

Mr. Hubbard, for the sake of your own credibility, what are your credentials for determining the veracity of the alleged artifacts? What specific facility or facilities did the external verifications?

In short, sir: why should we believe you?

I am not asking this to scorn you, to clarify. I am asking this because you are making some pretty extraordinary claims. I do in fact do this with other astounding claims, as well, by the way; I spent a very pleasurable day after reading the latest issue of Archeology magazine checking up on all of the "top discoveries of 2013" claims, so it's not just that I'm being "too skeptical."

Reply

HH

1/10/2014 02:17:28 pm

As stated earlier, they have been authenticated. But there are hundreds that wouldn't stand a chance.

Reply

Varrika

1/10/2014 03:57:15 pm

My apologies! Sometimes Jason can be a bit hard in the interviews but he is passionate about history, it just sometimes get in the way of facts!

Varika

1/11/2014 05:29:40 am

I wish whoever is trying to steal my name here would just stop. It's old, lame, and childish. And you can't even spell it right.

Harry, if they've been authenticated, why can't you provide me the information I asked for, which is "by whom?" WHO authenticated your finds? Which specific finds have been authenticated, and were they authenticated in situ? Or did you just have someone say, "Oh, yeah, that could be old, maybe stolen from a museum or lost from a private collection?" These would be entirely different types of authentication, after all.

I also assume that "But there are hundreds that wouldn't stand a chance." refers to "hundreds of artifacts" that wouldn't stand a chance of being authenticated. If so, which artifacts, and why?

Will

1/10/2014 09:31:02 am

Mr. Hubbard,

I am not interested in arguing the details of the evidence you claim to have.

Those details are overshadowed by one common sense question:

If you could prove that this Alexander Helios event actually occurred why haven't you done so using the proper channels (peer review)?

Mr. Hubbard, you would probably be one of the most famous and sought after historical adventurers of all time nearly overnight. You could do this by penning a short paper or book and presenting the evidence to others trained in relevant fields to evaluate.

Until that question is answered, I see no point in discussing the matter further, except to watch the troll/flamefest on Jason's blog for delicious entertainment.

Reply

HH

1/10/2014 02:14:55 pm

Proper peer review...? Did that 20 years ago. Sorry you missed it. However, there are dozens of our decipherment videos online...care to watch any of them? Why don't you become my peer and actually critique something of substance?

Reply

Will

1/10/2014 02:42:30 pm

I would be more than happy to stand corrected if you could provide me with the name and date of publication of peer reviewed evidence.

Such a find would certainly command publication immediately upon authentication of artifacts.

I would have been inclined to watch your videos had you simply provided a link instead of insinuating that I was too stupid to look them up.

100% lie.

1/11/2014 01:33:20 am

HH said, "Proper peer review...? Did that 20 years ago."

Where? That's a lie. Unless you can provide the paper you're referring to, why should we believe you?

HH

1/11/2014 01:53:31 am

Just search the net and come back better informed.

Will

1/11/2014 02:13:14 am

HH, again not to be confrontational, but why not just provide us with the link/date/publication?

Up with the people!

1/11/2014 02:23:32 am

Harry is only attempting to gin up google searches, etc.There is neither any paper nor any peer review.

Will

1/11/2014 02:27:54 am

I suppose he is trying to generate more site traffic.

According to his Bio on illinoiscaves.com he has started several successful businesses.

Maybe this is a push to update his website to a contemporary style including social networking, a targeted ad campaign, and ad-based revenue generation like Google Adsense.

Harry (Not Hubbard)

1/11/2014 04:25:41 pm

Judging from the list of "debatable issues" on HH's website, I take it that the peer review thing did not go well. Like Will, though, I am happy to be proven wrong, if he can legitimately cite one peer reviewed paper he actually published.

J.A. Dickey

1/10/2014 09:57:04 am

if the most logical and truthful statement H.H has truly made
is not directly on what he claims to be the A.Helios materials,
instead its on the scripted nature of A.U and S.W's utterances,
then his raw honesty about this has been refreshing inside
this ongoing controversy. At least the bold dynamic foursome
of FINDING BIGFOOT think they all might luck into spotting one!

Reply

HH

1/10/2014 02:15:57 pm

Thank you and well stated.

Reply

Dave Lewis

1/10/2014 01:31:14 pm

I'm fascinated by folks like Harry Hubbard.

Do you think he really believes this stuff? I usually think that folks like him are out for financial gain or just want to feel important.

It would be interesting to hear what a psychologist's diagnosis would be.

Dave Lewis

Reply

HH

1/10/2014 02:12:54 pm

Just another cheap shot. Is there anyone in there Dave??

Reply

Gunn

1/10/2014 02:16:32 pm

Funny you would mention Harry's possible motivations, whether of a financial or "self-centered" psychological approach--or, presumably, a combination of both.

I must admit that earlier tonight I wondered if it is possible that Harry has some of his own money "invested" in some of these items, which could cause enough consternation to befuddle a logical future approach...especially if the perceived JACKPOT VALUE of the items is at stake. He seems to think Wolter has an item worth millions.

This begs the question: Does he, himself, have "millions of dollars worth" of these artifacts, though the amount he actually invested is considerably less?

If it's not too late, I would like to ask Harry to let us know about any potential value he, himself, attributes to these rarities within his own personal collection. (Not a judgment or psychological diagnosis, only curious.)

Like I said, I only have 3 right now. One is a marble tablet, one is the Baetis River stone and the other is the largest piece of calcite ever to have come from any native quarry...and it glows in the dark under UV with brilliant PH. That one is named Peek-A-Boo because there's a man peeping out at you through a hole.

Gunn

1/10/2014 02:43:37 pm

Are you talking about a rock with a hole in it? Should I let this one pass...after all, I have TS. Okay, I'll let it pass.... (Sorry, HH, a private joke here.)

Anyway, I was trying to find out if you feel financially hooked into your three possessions at all, or if you believe they are especially valuable...as though this might possibly affect your viewpoint at all. Thanks for entertaining the nosey inquiries.

Reply

HH

1/10/2014 03:16:03 pm

Absolutely not Gunn. Our story is far more convoluted than what I can dispose of here. If you want to read my two books email me at illinoistombman2@hotmail and I'll send you a link to get them post gratis. Many people have told me they are the best most exciting books they've ever read. Then you can make an honest judgement of what happened for yourself and you can post it here on Jason's blog source. Are you willing to take a ride? Oh, you have to have an e-reader to download them. I'd suppose if you read them, you could comment on them here and who knows? Perhaps someone else might like to check them out...maybe even Mr. Hamilton. Then he could see for himself, the last thing I could ever be is an egotist. After all the death threats I've gotten through the years, I'm just happy to be alive. I came here knowing full well it was a pit of vipers. But one of my managers instructed me to come forward here to boost my google ratings. I sure do thank all you guys for your comments, good or bad, insult or compliment, at least you're not asleep. It sure would help if you knew more about us though as I am only one person in a group.

No, the rock doesn't have a hole in it, but the man on it is peeping out. Beautiful piece of honey calcite and as far as I know, it is the largest one in the world. Go figure.

Reply

Joh Rosman

1/10/2014 03:15:21 pm

Harry Hubbard! I do not like the way these posters are mocking you and your work. People may not agree, but to see them calling names like an adolescent with this gang mob mentality is not the way to get a point across.They dont want the truth, the just want to stir up controversy to get his on this page. I wonder if they would even try to intervie Wolter if they had the chance. I dont agree with all of Wolters show, but this site is way off for bringing a remedy to archeology. Keep up your great work Mr. Hubbard

Reply

HH

1/10/2014 03:17:31 pm

NOW THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKIN' 'BOUT!!

Reply

The real slim shady.

1/11/2014 01:42:46 am

Hubbard, "...You gotta remember, I've been doing this for 20 years. I eat people like you and your colony for breakfast. You don't believe in ETs or flying saucers because you are an idiot and I would say you have never read the works of Charles Fort either. Now are you going to cry and run to mommy because I called you an idiot? I wonder if you still live at home with your parents."

And we're supposed to take this guy seriously, or treat him with respect?

HH

1/11/2014 01:49:03 am

No slim...no one here deserves any respect. Are you respectable? What have you done? Is that the best comment you can come up with?

Steve

1/11/2014 02:43:39 am

Joh and others,

A couple people have mentioned that Scott should be on here dealing with these ranting comments. In fact, Scott has been on these comments, repeatedly. Here's an even-tempered response from Scott clarifying a post Jason put up about his honorary degree:

"I find your blog entertaining and the comments interesting, but nothing I would normally care to comment on or defend. However, this latest post merits a response since your research is partially right, and partially wrong. There is no way for you to get to the bottom of this so I will help you out." That was January 22, 2013.

When you find that note, read further down into the comments. A Kristi DeRubeis posted one of the most clear-headed comments I've seen on this website.

But, just for fun, keep reading down from there. After all, it's like Christmas when Scott, or a guest of his, shows up in Jason's comments. Down just a little further, the pile-on began. Led by whom? Tara Jordan, of course. "Indeed, by questioning the credibility of megalomaniac like Giorgio Tsoukalos, fraudster & plagiarist such as Von Däniken & archaeological luminary David Hatcher Childress,we are guilty of crime de lèse majesté. Keep up the good work Scott,your audience is only 3 degrees from being retarded"

That French phrase gave you so much more credibility, Tara, when you coupled it in the same sentence with an accusation that Scott's audience is 'retarded.' To his credit, Jason tried to shut Tara down.

Keep reading down that comment thread. It descends into complete nastiness. Phrases like "proven liar" and "total bullshit" and "crappy research" and on, and on.

I got tired of scrolling down the comments and just started using my "find" function to search. Here's what I found in the comments from Jason's peers -

R.J. Smythe - "You sir are a liar who has been committing a fraud upon the public."

Jeffrey Pitts - "…people like Scott Wolters should hope to God there is no hell because in my opinion liars and frauds should be condemned to the worst, lowest levels."

Ge Ki - "Jeez, "Reverend," for someone who keeps telling us to drop the issue, you sure do like to go on about it. […] Next time you bitch that we should just "let it go," just look in the mirror. As for me, I sure wish I could tolerate lying the way you can. So much for your 10 Commandments, ay?"

1,125 total comments to that one blog post.

This group complains ad nauseum about non-scientists and non-academics in their sandbox - the democratization of science. Yet a huge percentage of this group are non-scientists and non-academics. Their microphone? A keyboard and internet connection.

I love the way you imply I am somehow responsible for what other people choose to comment. Do you police your own comments, Steve? Do you recognize these gems from your YouTube channel?

"The mass breeding and slaughter of animals for consumption is an act of terrorism. It fuels the blood sacrifices reptilians need to control humanity.Kill the R-complex. Conway Michael Sinclair Woodburn. Sumerian."

No condemnation from you on your YouTube channel. Does this mean that you have a cabal of anti-Semitic David Icke enthusiasts sworn to do your bidding?

Matt Mc

1/11/2014 03:02:03 am

I would say that from Wolter's , Committee Film, and History/A&E's perspective a website like this is a good thing.

Sure it is highly critical of the views expressed in the program but it does help support interest in the program.

I have read many times "I would of given up on the show a long time ago but I enjoy watching the show and then reading Jason's blog about the show". I myself fall into this category. I find it entertaining and this blogs adds to that. And I am sure that all the other parties are aware of that and it is deemed as a good thing.

This blog while being critical of the content is positive promotion. At least that is how a good marketing manager would see it. They cannot actively support the blog because then it becomes apparent of there goals of using counterpoint as a promotional tool.

This is why I was so surprised that they tried to sue Jason, it seems counter-productive unless of course the only goal was to make sure that it was known that his book was "not affiliated" with the other parties involved.

Steve

1/11/2014 03:24:49 am

You're not responsible for their comments, Jason. But understand, you openly provide the forum and you certainly fan the flames. I don't police my YouTube channel comments because I don't pay attention to the comments. Occasionally I'll scroll down into them and engage. If there's a crazy in them, I tend to be neutral of make no comment at all.

You could allow through only those comments you deem clean and worthy. But you don''t. Why? I suspect it's because you like the attention.

I maintain multiple blogs; two about our family DNA study. I moderate the comments. If I didn't, all sorts of wars would flare up. Like here, wars on my blogs would not further the research. So why not change your settings to "moderate" Jason? You'll answer the usual line about fairness, freedom of speech, etc.

Steve, what policy would you recommend? Your friend Scott Wolter moderates the comments on his blog, and that generated complaints that he was censoring comments. If I were to do the same, you would undoubtedly be the first to accuse me of censoring you. Since I love the attention so much, that's obviously why I used to have a restricted comments policy where discussion closed after a fixed period. It turns out that didn't work very well and visitors coming months or years after the fact were feeling left out.

There is nothing I could possibly do that would make you happy short of endorsing Scott Wolter--except that you don't agree with Wolter either! You do put enormous effort into criticizing me for disagreeing with viewpoints you yourself claim to have seen no convincing evidence to support.

You might note, too, that the "bullshit" was in quotation marks because that was a direct quote from Scott Wolter on America Unearthed S01E08 "Chamber Hunting." Those were his inflammatory words, not mine.

Steve

1/11/2014 04:30:25 am

'…what policy would you recommend?'

Exactly what I posted - switch to "monitor." My DNA blogs are on monitor and took a bit of crap about it, but that crap didn't show up in my comments. As a result, my following and readership has steadily increased. Detractors will find other places to hate.

'If I were to do the same, you would undoubtedly be the first to accuse me of censoring you.'

Undoubtedly? You have no evidence of that. I'd enjoy not knowing one more hate site exists. You post your research. Those who want to comment have to keep it clean.

'There is nothing I could possibly do that would make you happy short of endorsing Scott Wolter'

Sure there is. Tell the truth as you find it and critique that. Stop adding to the facts. HH accused you of that and I have as well. The main thing that would make me personally happy, not that you care, would be to shut down a forum which includes an abnormally high level of lies, libel, and hate.

'...except that you don't agree with Wolter either!'

Speaking of lies. That's a lie. I agree with a lot of Scott's research. To name just a few of many, (1) there are alignments in the Newport tower that make it impossible it was a windmill, (2) The Kensington Runestone is genuine, (3) the Hooked X and dotted runes are very interesting, (4) the Westford Knight is not a knight at all, but rather a very interesting carving of a medieval sword.

Steve.
I sincerely apologize for hurting your feelings.As a gesture of good will & forgiveness,I would like to send you a box of diapers.
Let's Be Friends.

Varika

1/11/2014 05:44:20 am

"'…what policy would you recommend?'

Exactly what I posted - switch to "monitor." My DNA blogs are on monitor and took a bit of crap about it, but that crap didn't show up in my comments. As a result, my following and readership has steadily increased. Detractors will find other places to hate."

Jason DOES 'monitor.' How else would he post things for you to complain about later such as, "That's going to far into libelous territory, stop it" and "You are trying to pretend you're not the same Steve who was here harassing the blog earlier."

" 'If I were to do the same, you would undoubtedly be the first to accuse me of censoring you.'

Undoubtedly? You have no evidence of that. I'd enjoy not knowing one more hate site exists. You post your research. Those who want to comment have to keep it clean."

Considering that would leave YOU unable to post, and you've accused Jason of everything else in these comments, I'd say the evidence is pretty good that you'd whine about being censored.

" 'There is nothing I could possibly do that would make you happy short of endorsing Scott Wolter'

Sure there is. Tell the truth as you find it and critique that. Stop adding to the facts. HH accused you of that and I have as well. The main thing that would make me personally happy, not that you care, would be to shut down a forum which includes an abnormally high level of lies, libel, and hate."

And yet, when Jason DOES post the facts, you bitch bitch bitch about it, and even about things entirely unrelated to what was posted in the article... As for lies, libel, and hate, if you took YOUR share out of here, we'd all feel like we had room to breathe.

Also, nice job on searching multiple comment threads to find whatever you could to take completely out of context, up there. Not one thing from any of your OWN posts, I note, which are entirely in line with what you claim is being said with the above quotes. Such as, oh, say, calling all of Jason's readers en masse sycophants and idiots?

Ignorance Is bliss

1/11/2014 08:26:55 am

Steve! You nailed it on the head! best response ever to these non intellectuals

Dan

1/10/2014 05:29:26 pm

Isn't your actual name Horatio Rybnikar, and "Harry Hubbard" is just an alias?

Reply

HH

1/11/2014 01:47:05 am

Someone on this comical blog has a pulse. Best to you Dan, nice to meet you. My nickname from the early 70s was Horatio. Harry comes out of that. My mother's maiden name was Rybnikar, her parents were from Czechoslovakia. I used Horatio Rybnikar up to about 1998 as a stage name and pen name, as that is what appears on old Glass Hammer CDs and such. Paul, who's last name is Kelly, uses his mother's maiden name Schaffranke. It was all so confusing years ago during the dawn of the web to keep it all straight, so Harry Hubbard is what society in general labeled me. They are all aliases.

Reply

Matt Mc

1/11/2014 01:53:08 am

Okay not trying to be confrontational or anything just for clarity.

You are saying that neither Harry Hubbard or Horatio Rybnikar are your real legal name.

Not that there is a problem with that at all, Just wonder why use the alias when it comes to releasing historical information that is as important as you say it is?

HH

1/11/2014 01:56:38 am

Just read my bio at www.illinoiscaves.com.

Will

1/11/2014 01:57:30 am

I am confused as well.

Why would you and Paul use aliases considering great legacy you stand to establish with the biggest archaeological find in North American history?

HH

1/11/2014 02:04:04 am

Pen names are much easier to remember.

Will

1/11/2014 02:10:52 am

After reviewing your self-published biography on your website, I have walked away with more questions than answers.

In doing so, I found another Hollow Earth Video released in 2011 by Horatio Valens and Paul Veneti.

Is this another moniker that you use to protect yourself from academic conspirators who disparage your work?

Will

1/11/2014 02:12:11 am

Not to be confrontational but:

"Pen names are much easier to remember"

Who has a problem remembering their name?

Matt Mc

1/11/2014 02:22:30 am

I actually can understand a bit. I use Matt Mc (which is 2/3 of my name, I believe Jason knows my name as I have emailed him) as a name on here a completely different name from my own on FB, only place I use my real name is linkden. I do this simply because I do a lot of freelance work and if I happen to mention my own personal social or political beliefs I do not want that to prevent me from getting work in the future. A lot of both conservative and liberal groups or stations will not hire you if you are vocal about opposing beliefs. I would rather not do this, just like I would rather not be registered as "independent" on my voter status. I however like to show that despite my beliefs I can and will not let those beliefs interfere with the work I am hired to do.

That said however using a alias to publish and release information of such supposed historical value does diminish the overall impression of the work itself. Basically if you are so proud of it put your name on it.

Also Harry (again not ment to be confrontational) your work should be presented better (regardless of its validity) perhaps give up the late 90's geocitites website and presentation and move forward to at least wordpress, you will find it is easier to design and will give you work a less outdated and well childish presentation.

Will

1/11/2014 02:24:39 am

OK, I can understand the pen names thing to a certain degree considering what Matt said.

I also agree that a find of this magnitude would be real name worthy. I cannot see how releasing this information would somehow blacklist someone from anything in America today.

HH

1/11/2014 02:31:46 am

Try changing history Will and see how many friends you have. My hat's off to Scott Wolter for kicking down the door of pre-Columbian presence here in America. He told me years ago, "The door's been kicked in, I opened it for you. Now all you have to do is stay with it and walk in."

Matt Mc

1/11/2014 02:37:49 am

I don't know if you want to follow Scott in that door honestly.

He has made it pretty clear he cares more about a narrative than the facts.

Titus pullo

1/11/2014 01:46:27 am

Didn't Clive cussler have a plot in his book treasure about a roman fleet sailing up the rio grand with the treasures from the great library at Alexandria? I wonder if he took the burrows cave claims as a plot idea. It was one of his better plots.

The one question I do have is how the Romans sailed up the Mississippi given the current and the weight of the ships...they had to be pretty heavy with all those items.

Reply

HH

1/11/2014 01:55:46 am

Cussler's book came out years before we were involved and I've never read it. I don't read fiction except for evolution books which I read constantly. The ships had sails and were paddled by oarsmen and yes, they were huge.

Reply

Varika

1/11/2014 06:04:05 am

Titus, I can't see a Roman galley being that much heavier than a fully-loaded three-story floating casino, otherwise known as a steamboat. They paddled the Mississippi for any number of years. Granted, they used steam to drive paddle wheels rather than oarsmen to drive oars, but I don't know that "how did they get up the Mississippi?" is the real deal-breaker question here. I mean, we're talking oarsmen who could row fast enough to ram their ships into each other hard enough to open massive holes. According, I admit, to Wikipedia, that's anywhere from 4 to 8 knots. The Mississippi river's current runs anywhere from 1-3 knots, according to the National Park Service (and an mph-to-knots translator). (http://www.nps.gov/miss/riverfacts.htm) Admittedly, galleys travelling with treasure aboard were probably heavier than a war-galley, but it's still easily within the realms of "physically possible."

IF they managed to make it all the way across the Atlantic, around Florida, and across the Gulf of Mexico, of course. Apparently without stopping anywhere else for supplies or considering any other possible river sites that would be just as good, like the Delaware or Chesapeake bays and rivers, or any of the other areas that later European settlers started major ports and cities at...

Also, I will ask my dad about the Cussler book later. He has the entire collection of the man's work and will probably be able to give me a title.

There are several problems with pre-modern ships on the Mississippi river Most ships, prior to steam, made a one way trip down the Mississippi riding the current. To go upstream required too much manpower because of the current. Yes, your Roman warships could achieve speeds of 4 to 8 knots, but that was only for short distances, often less than mile. As for the steamboat, it is not only steam driven, it also has a wide flat bottom that gives it the buoyancy it needs to stay afloat.
Another problem is depth. Most of your Mediterranean style ships, of that period, would have too deep of a draft, especially if fully loaded. Then there is problem of debris. Any steamboat captain worth his salt would sail on the Mississippi without a competent river pilot. This person had to be able to read and predict the constantly changing character of the river. Until the arrival of iron hulled ships, the Mississippi was a navigators nightmare of half submerged snags and shifting sandbars that could, and did, rip the bottom out of a riverboat. One other problem is sails. Sure you can sail on the Mississippi, as long as you wind for your sails. No wind means, no forward movement, unless you can tack into the wind, but that requires a considerable amount of room, especially if you are large cargo ship. Just imagine a large Phoenician galley trying to tack its way up the Mississippi (let alone a whole fleet).

Gunn

1/11/2014 02:40:30 am

Harry, my guess on this public blog is that you have so much of yourself and your time (possibly money, too?) invested in this fraud that it seems impossible to detach yourself from it.

If I were you, I'd make up a new name, detach myself from the past (up to the present), and disappear. I know you don't want advice, but now you are coming across as someone only interested in publicity and possible financial gain. To me, this is obscene. Any publicity is not good publicity, as we've seen here. Sir, you need to search your soul.

Reply

HH

1/11/2014 02:58:54 am

I'll be sure to do that Gunn. Thank you so much for your elevated intellectual advice. I have such issues that you have made clear to me. At your bidding, I'm going to change my name right now. You are such a kind and caring person to share your blissful disdain. I think I'll just chase a new discovery and work on those tablets instead. So I'm supposed to quit because YOU say it's a fraud. You must be nuts. To me, since you are obscene, will you change your name and go play somewhere else? And no, I'm just snowed in and it's miserable outside so I've had some time to blog with you guys.

It's been real. Gotta run, chores to do and I'm expecting a new shipment of snake oil.

Reply

Matt Mc

1/11/2014 03:04:44 am

This is ment as no offense to the Harry and Gunn,

I am the only one that finds it ironic that Gunn of all people is saying to someone that they should back off on ridiculous claims because they are out there and borderline on fraud and obsession?

Gunn Sinclair

1/11/2014 03:48:17 am

With Jason's permission, I will debate you endlessly here, Matt McNutt, about the authenticity of the KRS. How dare you compare the KRS, which has ever-increasing scientific provenance, with this garbage discussed in this thread. There is no irony. To say "KRS" and "Burrows Cave" in the same breath is an insult, though you say no offense is to be taken.

By the way, I just re-published my website to include recent conclusions. My website is provided free to the public as an educational site. I am not trying to sell anything, though I am trying to convince readers that Scandinavians came far inland to this MN/SD area in pre-Columbus times. Click on the fake green name, above.

Gunn and I have said in the past, I will gladly join in conversation with you when you choose not to name call and insult people. I was quite impressed with your discourse this morning. As I said I ment no insult. You might feel your idea's are different but I see them the same way you see Harry's. And you are correct you are not trying to make a quick buck and I did not mean to imply so, if I gave that impression that was not my intention.

KRS REFRESHER

1/11/2014 03:54:08 am

"No contemporary evidence relating to the Kensington stone is known from the time of its discovery in November, 1898, until January 1, 1899. No letter or diary record of it, written within a few days or weeks after the discovery, has come to light. The stone was unearthed by laymen, not archaeologists. The details of the find were not at the time recorded in a scholar's notebook. No report was sent to any newspaper in November or December, 1898, as far as is known, or to the Minnesota Historical Society. No one seems to have photographed the stone at the site where it was found or in the Ohman yard or at the bank or store in Kensington. The first known letter written about the stone bears the date January 1, 1899, and the first known mention of it in print is dated January 14, 1899. No one has offered a satisfactory explanation of this contemporary silence of two months, which is difficult to understand on any hypothesis." (Blegen, 1968)

The initial silence can be used equally to argue authenticity or forgery. The only people who claimed to have seen the stone come out of the ground were Ohman and his teenage son. (how did this get on krs?)

Reply

LynnBrant

1/11/2014 04:30:07 am

ps I agree that the KRS does not deserve to be grouped with Burrow's Cave. The KRS is a sophisticated forgery, carefully planned and executed. Burrow's Cave is crass by comparison, and has a whiff of carnival huckster about it.

Dan

1/11/2014 05:18:33 am

But you do have to hand it to Burrows and "Hubbard". Burrows is a retired correctional guard with no academic background and "Hubbard" is a high school dropout with a background in waste management in Florida and concert promotion. Yet, these two (even as rivals) have managed to turn this complete fraud into a 20-year money-maker, have appeared on national tv, and now have taken up multiple topics on this skeptics blog. They may be crass hucksters and snake oil salesman, but by sheer persistence have given "Burrows Cave" a life of its own and perhaps a greater public profile than KRS. Its like the Bigfoot of archaeology.

Harry Hubbard.
Egyptian sculptures and carvings are highly stylized and symbolic,because ancient Egyptians used the distinctive technique of sunk relief.In comparison,the Egyptian artifacts you present,are extremely unsophisticated.Do you have any explanation for this discrepancy?.

Matt McNutt, you are the offender here. What you have opened the door to is a comparison and contrasting of Ohman and Burrows. Besides offending me, knowingly, you have just pooped on an honorable man's grave. LynnBrant, you have a problem. Neither you nor Matt mind pooping on a good man's grave.

No one cares about Blegen's OLD and obviously uninformed point of view. I am an ardent defending of the KRS and the reputation of the man who found it. This is my self-appointed duty motivation. I seek the truth without seeking profit. I seek truth-in-history, and I will say again that it is an insult to bring my advocacy of the KRS into this thread.

Even Only Me wouldn't do that...I think. Anyway, this time I won't be sucked into a defense of the defendable until the subject comes up again in a future blog heading.

On guard!

It is true that various scoundrels inhabit this web site, some more offensive than others. In the meantime, I've got a bookshelf to put together.

Reply

LynnBrant

1/11/2014 04:53:50 am

For the record, I do believe Olof Ohman was a good man. I've even said that in the position I think he may have been in, I may have done the same thing. So get off your high horse. Olof wasn't the first good man to be caught up in a web of deceit.

Reply

Discovery of America

1/11/2014 05:09:06 am

There's absolutely no evidence that Olof Ohman was "used". More to the point, there's no signpost heading that direction.

Gunn

1/11/2014 05:11:14 am

LynnBrant, you have just publicly declared that Olaf Ohman was caught up in deceit.

You are not qualified to judge the man, at least because of your obvious bad character exhibited here. You have a habit of coming to this blog to snipe the dead man's character, yet you have shown yourself to have obvious bad character in doing so. You don't mind aggressively attacking a dead man's reputation, claiming publicly over and over again like a flitting snipe that he was guilty of fraud...or at least some kind of duplicity in a fraud.

There is no legitimate reason to accuse the man, yet you are saying there is a reason. You, yourself, are perpetuating a fraud...and pooping on a good, innocent man's grave while doing so. Why don't you just simply stop doing this? You come across here as a person with very little character, yourself, yet you have the nerve to attack Olaf's character and integrity. If I haven't already told you so, well shame on you.

Discovery of America

1/11/2014 05:32:09 am

Gunn commented:
"You, yourself, are perpetuating a fraud"

Pot calling the kettle

LynnBrant

1/11/2014 05:41:14 am

Discovery, I disagree, there are many signposts. Surely you know that the dominate opinion nationally among those who know the KRS exists, is and has long been that Ohman did it himself. But over the years we've learned that it is far too sophisticated for him to have done alone. Far more logical is that the real perpetrator went looking for a finder, and that Olof's role was limited to that. Either it's authentic, Olof did it alone, or others were involved and he was the finder. I find the latter by far the most plausible.

Gunn, Yes, I am saying Olof (with an o not an a) was caught up in deceit. Of course it's all speculation, but that's what I think. If you don't like it there's no reason to mince words, just say so. ;)

Matt Mc

1/11/2014 05:04:08 am

Also my comment was not on the finding of KRS or anything like that, Rather Harries weird tales of Roman cities in the Midwest and Gunn tales of whatever cities and river meetings and holes. Both are fantastic to say the least.

And Gunn be offended, doesn't really bother me.

Reply

Gunn

1/11/2014 05:13:51 am

Obviously, jackass, because you set out to offend me.

Matt Mc

1/11/2014 05:23:17 am

No I thought it was ironic that you off all people where questions tall tales based on civilizations in prehistoric US. Not ment to insult just ment to mention that I found it very ironic. You came up with the tales, just like Harry came up with his. Just funny seeing one tale maker tell the other tale maker that the tales are ridiculous.

Anyway have a good afternoon Gunn, I hope your cabinet comes out well.

LynnBrant

1/11/2014 05:44:16 am

One can't help but note that Gunn gets positively overwhelmed with his own emotions. He is totally incapable of mustering up a scintilla of scientific detachment and objectivity.

Gunn

1/11/2014 06:40:52 am

I get overwhelmed with emotion by calling you two jackasses? It doesn't require emotion, only reading ability.

Only Me

1/11/2014 09:20:40 am

No, Gunn, I would not disparage Olaf Ohman or his family. I've never claimed to be a Southern gentleman, but that would be lower than a snake's belly in a wagon rut. As far as I'm concerned, any allegations of his involvement in the KRS's creation, placement and finding are just anecdotal. Until verifiable proof overturns this, the allegations are as worthless as a bucket of spit.

That you would doubt if I would engage in such a base tactic is surprising, but over the last couple of days, I've received worse.

I've been included as part of a "hate group" and "colony" and been called everything from a sycophant to a Euroracist. In my youth, such name calling would have had my temper flaring like Krakatoa, but I've wizened in my age. Now, it's a source of delicious entertainment that has me spending more time laughing than posting comments.

There is no comparison between the KRS and Burrow's Cave. The former has been the subject of documented scientific and linguistic inquiry, while the latter is defined by fraudulent activity and financial interest. Polar opposites, in my opinion.

Only Me, I was making a point...nothing personal intended, other than the reference to me playing into talking off-thread, if that whole conversation could have been considered off-thread. I was talking about the art of provoking me to discuss KRS related matters...off-thread?

Anyway, thanks for offering your position about Olof and his reputation. I am able to discern that you are agnostic towards the KRS, which is fine with me. I am most against those who openly declare it a hoax, and the finder a hoax-ster...like so many colorful parrots. Yes, I am calling some overly-skeptical people here parrots on that issue.

Sorry to hear about the hate group thing. I haven't checked my email for a while, so maybe I better take a peek, too. Hopefully, though, I would be spared in the "anointing" process. Yes, this blog is good for some belly laughs. I'm hesitant to admit this, but I've got some of the best belly laughs from things Tara the Terror has said to poor steve. (Sorry steve...it's just that the depth of distain was so very palatable, in a purposely wicked way.)

And what does that say about you, Tara? If I remember correctly, we left on pretty good terms several months ago...I as the grandfatherly old coot, and her as the tart...something like that. Anyway, Varika has I think almost bested her on a few occasions here. She didn't like my joke about Native Americans receiving red cloth as monetary value in exchange for the attentions of a mad bull.

CFC

1/11/2014 05:43:39 am

The comment by HH about Scott Wolter kicking down the door of pre-Columbian presence here in America and quoting Wolter as saying years ago, "The door's been kicked in, I opened it for you, now all you have to do is stay with it and walk in."
reminded me of the description on another posting that Lynn Brant gave (who knew Scott Wolter well) as a combination of a TV Evangelist and Pro Wrestler.
The more I read about and observe Scott Wolter, the more I think this description is spot on.

It's more simple than that. It's called following opportunity. Gates of opportunity open and close. We choose which gates to enter into or avoid. When opportunity comes knocking, one has to take advantage. I see Wolter as simply taking advantage of becoming a public figure, as an opportunity. It unfolded for him...he followed the pathways and opened some gates of opportunity.

They're still opening. If they're not opening fast enough, I guess Wolter figures it's okay to kick some doors in...part of the public persona. He will try to fill in some of the gaps where he thinks we're missing out. (Kind of what Jason attempts to do, as he looks for doors of opportunity to open.) But not just anyone can rise to the level of American TV host.

There may be better days ahead for Wolter if and when he actually finds or puts together something of substance. I hope he does. I would like to see a fulfilled script, where the outcome of the show isn't already known. A show can be scripted all the way through, with suspense, yet leaving the conclusion to an "open finding," not knowing the result ahead of time. When this is done--and when something of substance is uncovered, it will give the show a boost. We can't have a yearly, protracted episode of Geraldo opening an empty vault.

I for one will try to be a bit more patient. Sooner or later, something of substance will come Wolter's way...yes, as the KRS did. Beginner's luck on that one. Now comes the hard part...or, I should say, now continues the hard part.

Either fortunately or unfortunately, Wolter's reputation is tied in with the KRS. I'll still have to go with "fortunately" for now, believing he did the KRS a favor by re-authenticating it for the present time-frame.

We have seen how the recently found Greenland Runestone lends support and credibility to the dating methodology used on the KRS--an unfavorable angle now twisting back into a favorable one.

By the way, the KRS has never been determined to be a hoax. Calling it a hoax is a hoax. Let's stop the purposeful deception and slander here about the KRS. It's still a very open matter, not at all closed. In my simple mind, only simpletons think the matter is closed as a fraud. This is foolishness and wishful thinking on the part of overly-zealous skeptics.

Skepticism is fine if not taken too far. The same can be true with speculation. My speculation is within reason and predicated on logic. When Jason opens another heading related to the KRS, I will be more than happy to hash anything over here, endlessly.

Back to the bookcase....

Reply

LynnBrant

1/11/2014 06:39:27 am

LOL @ "But not just anyone can rise to the level of American TV host."

Dave Lewis

1/11/2014 09:19:42 am

Scott Wolter can make some $$$ by getting on the UFO/Bigfoot/Paranormal conference circuit.

I doubt we would get many TV evangelists to admit to "religious entertainment."

Reply

Theta Anno Domini

1/11/2014 09:02:42 am

WOW! I was told my ideas would be welcome on this site by a friend who knew I was into reading on acient cultures. I really would like to comment, but it seems people are really bullying Hubbard and others over thier position. Some of the comments are helpful but Jason Colovito , some of your posters really do get a bit nasty when they dont agree. I love the info and links people post here be it afrocentric, eurocentric, or aliencentric, and can research to filter out the lies, but some of the group members are a bit childish when it comes to discussionvs I will keep to reading your material on your site respectufully. I dont think new posters should be badgered for sharing info.

You're welcome to share your views, and I'm happy to have you post. However, please understand that I don't control who posts here (as you no doubt saw when you posted your comment). It is unfortunate that Harry Hubbard chose to set a poor tone by making disparaging comments about me.

I will remind everyone again to please try to keep comments civil and focused on facts and evidence.

Reply

Theta Anno Domini

1/11/2014 09:20:47 am

Thank you Jason! I appreciate your commentis as I do enjoy your work. What I will do from now on if it is possible is just send them through email. to you. I know my theories are a bit odd, but I rather have them corrected and looked over than dismissed.All of us have small pieces to the puzzle but its too much confusion here. Thanks again

Dave Lewis

1/11/2014 09:25:34 am

I, too, would like to see the comments be a bit more civil. Ad hominem attacks should be avoided.

Will

1/11/2014 09:18:51 am

Theta,

This comment section is normally great even for people who do not see eye to eye on an issue.

I wouldn't make a judgement based on comments for this particular article because certain individuals are expressing extreme attention-seeking behavior for motives unknown to me or many of the recent followers of this blog.

Reply

Theta Anno Domini

1/11/2014 09:22:01 am

Thanks!

CFC

1/11/2014 09:27:54 am

Welcome Theta! I come here mainly to enjoy Jason's amazing reviews of the show America Unearthed and other programs and occasional book reviews.

Theta Anno Domin

1/11/2014 09:23:22 am

Keep of the great work Harry! Jason thank you for your work! Hopefully one day I can hear you all on a radio show!

Reply

An Over-Educated Grunt

1/11/2014 12:43:36 pm

Without going into the specifics of any of the claims, if the best rebuttals that can be managed are "you're stupid" and "check out my for-sale items," it's not terribly convincing, either from the standpoint of argument, or the solidity of your point. I've seen peer-reviewed articles bounce with reviewer comments like "Is this a joke?" and "Did a high-schooler write this?" If you get bruised so badly that you have to resort to "you're stupid" in response to a blog post, small wonder you view academia as against you. If that's your response whenever challenged on your evidence... well, sucks to be you, even Newton, for all his horrible personality, could point to his work when challenged.

Reading the comments has been more enlightening than the actual discussion points. The discussion points were pretty much a straight hand-wave, but the comments show that Mr. Hubbard isn't serious about debate, either here, or in general. He's sloppy, his evidence is thin, and his techniques consist of airy dismissal, bravado, and ad-hominem. It's sad, actually. Given the chance to engage, he did, and turned out to be packing a Brown Bess - loud and flashy, but inaccurate.

You know what, Hank? I can call you Hank, right, since you're sure to call me whatever comes to mind. You know what, Hank? Any idiot can look up a Latin phrase, and, coincidentally, that one's about halfway down Wikipedia's list of Latin phrases. I'd link it, but you have a 180 IQ, I'm certain you know how search engines work. For a man who claims a 180 IQ, you sure do have a weak grasp on the rules of evidence. You say a thing is so, and it's up to you to prove it is, not the rest of the world's job to disprove you.

And let's examine one very specific claim, that if you try to change established history, entrenched academia fights back. My, that certainly was what Howard Carter encountered. Also, Heinrich Schliemann. For that matter, Helge Ingstad. Certainly, the establishment blocked every effort they made to publicize their findings. That's not actually the way it works. You find a site that is even remotely convincing, that has any potential at all, and you'll be ears-deep in archaeologists. I'm just a dumb grunt, so I'll leave the fancy Latin of "victory has a thousand fathers" to you and your 180 IQ.

It would require better minds than mine to catalogue your litany of errors, Mr. Hubbard, starting with your choice of nom de guerre. Anyone who wishes not to be taken for a charlatan would be ill-served by calling themselves Hubbard. I'm just a dumb grunt, but I'm sure your 180 IQ certainly noticed the most famous or infamous bearer of that name, Lafayette Ronald Hubbard. I can only assume then that your choice is deliberate, and you wanted a name that called to mind one of the 20th Century's greatest con men.

Of course, you're welcome to prove me wrong. Like I said - I'm just a dumb grunt; put me in a bare room with two rocks and I'll break one and lose the other. I doubt you will, though, since it's easier for you to resort to name-calling.

Hubbard.You intentionally avoided the technical questions I addressed you on this thread & the previous thread.Feel free to contact me through my Facebook page,I have connection with people from the Institute of Egyptology at Waseda University Tokyo.Let's see what you got....

For the sake of the argument I wont even touch the issues related to Hubbard`s distinctive lunacy:(stones,ancient tablets,artifacts depicting Reptilians and "other E.T entities contacts", Mesolithic Dinosaurs....The JFK assassination: According to Hubbard`s observations,the man who shot John Kennedy on Dealey plaza, was actually hiding in the trunk of Kennedy`s own car....).I want to focus on Harry`s expertise : "Celts,Vikings, Phoenicians,Romans,Greeks, Egyptians,they were all there...( in North America).."
I want Harry to show me one historical record that documents the presence of Celts,Phoenicians,Romans,Greeks & Egyptians in North America.

Sword Skeptic

1/12/2014 04:53:55 am

I just visited the Illinois Caves website. Don't worry too much about the missing artifact labeled "The Controversial Sword". It is a 19th century sword, probably theatrical or fraternal. There are hundreds if not thousands of others that were made and will identical to the sword in the photos. The hilt is probably brass and not bronze and the iron or steel blade was not made for war. Here is an identical sword complete with its scabbard: http://www.swordforum.com/forums/showthread.php?91911-French-military-academy-sword

Long time readers of this blog or those familiar with alleged Viking visitors in MN will notice the similarity of this sword with the "Viking" sword from Ulen which appeared in the season 1 AU episode "Giants in Minnesota".

Reply

Sword Skeptic

1/12/2014 04:56:45 am

Here is another sword like the one on the Illinois Caves site: http://arms2armor.com/Swords/misc5.htm

Seems too me who loves history. You men are well educated in history or studies of ancient history. At the same time your all like a bunch of little boys in a sandbox. Kicking sand into each other's faces.Get over yourselfs. Also ty for the history lessons.

Reply

aust1

8/21/2014 02:34:49 am

I am flabbergasted by the recrimination towards someone trying to get some light on interesting subject matter. Harry has obviously read some psychology books to get you all fired up and start researching and coming back with some real questions pertaining to these artifacts. Unfortuneately no one has done the research to ask the right questions and Harry's not giving the real evidence to until someone understands what he is talking about. Enough evidence is there and if you have the intellectual acumen, Harry has given a mountain load of evidence to start any decent investigation. May I suggest to Harry he go on one of those sites that raise money. 1.5mil to buy the site and start a dig. If the tomb is really there this is tuppence to begin. The costs may be high but the crooks have got in first to desecrate the site. If there are further untouched mother loads to be found as implied this would be the greatest discovery. There is no doubt about it, there's money in them hills. Will you all get behind him and help to doooo something worthwhile and be a part of something that could be history. If it doesn't pan out. Then at lest you were a part of a very good caper and you may learn something about ancient history, which can lead anywhere. One thing for sure those artifacts should not be there. So where have they come from? Stop judging and do some work! The worlds watching and waiting and so far all we hear is blah blah blah. The guys offering a great adventure go live it ! Harry you sly young fellow, you should be arrogant and not suffer fools, You've seen your fellow American's destroy and ignore a site that requires serious study. The worlds a devil of a place, and devils abound. Goodluck and I hope to see the results of a careful investigation and dig. The knowledge would be astounding, so much you've deciphered and found evidence of a gobal seafaring peoples leaving traces all over the world. Harry's story shows there were many and varied reasons people challenged the oceans and pursued lives elsewhere in the world where they were safe from death and could have a trading lifestyle still connected to civilization and the old world. Many many questions and the answers so close.

Reply

Mother76

11/3/2014 09:49:05 am

Ok, Harry has spent his life and most of his income on finding this cave. Yes he does have three rocks. One is an old tombstone (American Unearthed). I have talk to him and seen his evidence. There is nothing he has that can be proven to come out of the cave. Yes, he thinks anyone whom disagrees with him is "stupid". That includes me. Fortunately, Harry is in the wrong place and will never get into the cave. .Although he claims to have a lot of friends in the area most of the neighbors think he should go away and leave us all alone. The neighbors, whom lived here during the "Burrow's Cave refinding (NOT LOST JUST HID), remember the mess it was out here. People every where. Digging holes on land that did not belong to them making problems for the farmers and their animals. Cluttering roads so that the school bus and land owners could not get down the roads. And then comes Harry to tell all of us how he wants to open everything to the public..so that HE could make money. Oh, he wants to sell t shirts, have motels and even fast food places out here. He wanted the county to come in and "find the cave" . He stated it should be taken away from the rightful owners. Claiming it was "murder scene". Oh yes, after the county "found the cave", Harry wanted sole access for months to "study" the cave.. The owners of the land in this area had a "special meeting" (those that lived here during the 70's and 80's) decided that they wanted nothing to do with Harry. Yes, most land owners will not even let him on their property, ourselves included. By the way the "old timers" know on which piece of property the cave really exists. And Harry though close can not access the cave from that location. So Harry continue to look in, on and under "your site". Thank God, you will never find it, nor be allowed in it. History is safe from those who wish to make money from it. This site will be protected from people who are greedy and wish to steal "our history" from us, our families, our children, and our grandchildren. The real owners of BURROW'S CAVE.

What a sore loser you are Cindy as nothing was found on your property after extensive subsurface testing. Can you name JUST ONE local landowner who can back up your claims against me? Can you prove any single compliant you state? Of course not. And it is YOU who the persons living nearby who want you out of the area because you and your husband are whacko...and yes, I can provide names by the dozens. It was YOU who temporarily cluttered the roads with campers and trailers, not me, and no one ever dug any holes on your property which is south of the target site. You treated the team attempting to help you with aggressive lunacy and you ripped the leader out of several thousand dollars with your lame and fraudulent cons. There is no cave on your property and your efforts to secure development funds are in vain as others understand there is nothing to your futile crying. After nothing worked for you, you began to tell people there were precious metals ore on your property which is a lie also. You need to continue with your medications and perhaps consider stronger doses or more powerful drugs in the future.

Reply

Gary M

11/21/2015 10:53:10 pm

A few years past I was solicited by Wayne May and others who had made an agreement with Russell to enter the cave. It was a scam by Wayne May and his associates to enter the cave and take everything they possibly could. When I became aware of their plans I expressed my desire to have nothing to do with it and informed Russell of their plans. It turned into death threats and worse. I remained friends with Russell up to the time of his death. Have NOTHING to do with Wayne and his band of thugs since.

If you would desire to communicate I would like to do so.

Thanks,

Gary...

Reply

hipster

2/15/2015 07:20:32 am

Wow HH, answers questions. Still the same old circular logic. Like chicken and the egg. Nothing substantial. Just a bunch of steaming pile of dung in order to make some dough.

Reply

MOTHER 76

3/22/2015 10:08:44 am

If you disagree with HH "you are nuts and need medicine". This is why no one wants him on their property. As for Peter's " for $10.00 contract", your right, we would have been "nuts to agree". We could "see the cave but not be allowed in. Peter could dispose of all artifacts as he sees fit ( to the highest bidder)" not to the museum as agreed. Could dig and do anything he wanted on our property.. where ever he wanted. Would not agree to go by the laws of the State of Illinois. Lives in Florida so a civil lawsuit and extradition is not possible. Continually lied to us calling it "disinformation" and was out to STEAL ANYTHING and EVERTHING he could. I am so glad he is "your Friend".." birds of a feather".. YOU brought him to US. LOOKING for Jesse Jame's TREASURE. LOL He is not allowed on our property. AND NEITHER ARE YOU. Also tell your minions to STAY OFF . This land is marked Private Property and it is a felony to be on our land without our permission. Oh, that's right all the land out here is marked. Can you spell FELONY TRESSPASSING?? Maybe you should look up the laws on that. YOU WILL NEVER BE ALLOWED IN THE CAVE PERIOD. Go ROB history for some place else. Make up your stories about some place else. Everyone know that Native Americans lived here not Egyptians!!!! Go look at all the "REAL ARTIFACTS" found in this area. Native American.
AND NOW.. go ahead and call us more names and state how we are "Liars and NUTS." And sell more books, after all your are the only one in the area "looking to make money" and rewrite history.
MAYBE some day you will be able to see what's really in "the cave" in a museum. BUT YOU WILL NEVER BE IN IT!! As for what the "neighbors " think of us.. we only know four. So what the ones who do not know us think... WELL, maybe you should find out WHAT THEY ALL THINK OF YOU!!! As for you IQ, sign a contract for $10.00 that gives someone else all RIGHTS to your property. "Sticks and stone may break my bones but words from you will NEVER HURT US". What you DON'T KNOW, could fill a book... Maybe someday I'll write ONE. And I would not have to "MAKE UP" a darn thing.

Reply

land-owner

5/8/2015 07:52:34 pm

HAY H.H. if you have an I.Q. of 180 then why did you not graduate HIGH SCHOOL ????

Hello Harry Hubbart, where can I see these videos of these Ancient Maps from Valens and Veneti? Thanks in advance, Dave.

Reply

Mother76

10/5/2015 02:27:57 pm

Harry has now gotten Geo Dowser to buy the land directly east of our property. They plan of digging underground from their side to get to the cave on our side. ANYONE know a good lawyer in ILLINOIS??? All those years of looking and Harry was in the wrong place!!! Who is "nuts and crazy"???? We own ALL rights to our property. Harry and Geo Dowser will NOT be allowed to come and STEAL the history of the people of ILLinois. Go home to Georgia Harry and take Geo Dowser back to Florida. For those of you who invested with Geo Dowser.. The property cost $250,000, not a million. Go look at the Marion Co. Courthouse. We will prosecute trespassers both on our ground and below it.

Reply

Dan

10/5/2015 02:49:08 pm

Notify your local authorities of any plans they may have to trespass upon your property. Make sure you have some actual proof of their intentions. Law enforcement will not take any action unless there is probable cause to believe that a crime is going to be committed which will require proof of their actual intent.

Reply

Andrew

11/10/2015 02:31:21 am

Wow, these horrid retards and trolls trying to bash Harry non stop. I see none of you reading books, making discoveries, or trying to think outside the box. You all are inside a paradox that you will never get out of.

Reply

Gary Mitchell

11/21/2015 10:37:28 pm

Harry, Does the name of Ralif Wallick (sp ?) and Wayne May ring any bells?

Please contact me. Much to talk about.... Thanks

Reply

Leave a Reply.

About Me

I'm an author and editor who has published on a range of topics, including archaeology, science, and horror fiction. There's more about me in the About Jason tab.